Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement

United States Department of the Navy June 2017

Volume I
Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement

Volume I

United States Department of the Navy

June 2017
Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

for Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

June 2017

Lead Agency: United States Department of Navy 

Cooperating Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service 

Title of Proposed Action: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Activities 

Designation: Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement

Abstract 

The United States Department of the Navy (Navy) prepared this Draft 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 inland waterways (e.g., lower Chesapeake Bay). 

Three alternatives were analyzed in the Draft EIS/OEIS: 

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

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

the resulting environmental effects from taking no action when compared with the effects 

of the Proposed Action. 

 Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) reflects a representative year of training activity, rather 

than a maximum tempo of training activity in every year, a lower level of hull-mounted 

active sonar use from that conducted in the past and reflects the current practice of using 

synthetic training to meet some requirements. Alternative 1 proposes testing programs that 

are anticipated in any given year and limits the maximum amount of testing from occurring. 

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

Alternative 1 but is still a reduction from the past. Under this alternative, the Navy would be 

enabled to meet the highest levels of required readiness. Alternative 2 allows the Navy to 

meet all unit-level sonar training requirements through the conduct of discrete at-sea 

training exercises and not through the use of synthetic training. In Alternative 2, the 

maximum annual testing efforts predicted for each system or program could occur 

concurrently in any given year and the provision is included for high levels of annual testing 

of certain systems. 

In this Draft EIS/OEIS, the Navy analyzed potential impacts on environmental resources resulting from 

activities under Alternatives 1 and 2. Under the No Action Alternative, this EIS/OEIS also includes an 

analysis of environmental effects from taking no action (activities would not occur) 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, 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 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

i 

Table of Contents

Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ES.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... ES-1

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED MILITARY READINESS TRAINING AND 

TESTING ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................. 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-5

ES.4.2.1 ... Training ................................................................................................ES-5

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

ES.4.3 Alternative 2 .........................................................................................................ES-6

ES.4.3.1 ... Training ................................................................................................ES-6

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

ES.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................................ ES-7

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

ES.5.2 Acoustic and Explosive Analysis .........................................................................ES-28

ES.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................... ES-28

ES.6.1 Project and Other Activities Analyzed for Cumulative Impacts .........................ES-28

ES.6.2 Resource-Specific Cumulative Impact Conclusions ...........................................ES-28

ES.6.2.1 ... Air Quality ..........................................................................................ES-29

ES.6.2.2 ... Sediments and Water Quality ............................................................ES-29

ES.6.2.3 ... Vegetation .........................................................................................ES-29

ES.6.2.4 ... Invertebrates .....................................................................................ES-30

ES.6.2.5 ... Habitats ..............................................................................................ES-30

ES.6.2.6 ... Fishes ................................................................................................. ES-30

ES.6.2.7 ... Marine Mammals ...............................................................................ES-30

ES.6.2.8 ... Reptiles ..............................................................................................ES-30

ES.6.2.9 ... Birds and Bats ....................................................................................ES-31
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ii

Table of Contents

ES.6.2.10 . Cultural Resources .............................................................................ES-31

ES.6.2.11 . Socioeconomics .................................................................................ES-31

ES.6.2.12 . Public Health and Safety ....................................................................ES-31

ES.6.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................ES-31

ES.7 MITIGATION .......................................................................................................... ES-32

ES.8 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................... ES-36

ES.8.1 Consistency with Other Federal, State and Local Plans, Policies and 

Regulations ........................................................................................................ES-36

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

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity .............................ES-37

ES.8.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ....................................ES-37

ES.8.4 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives and 

Mitigation Measures ..........................................................................................ES-37

ES.9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... ES-37

ES.9.1 Scoping Process ..................................................................................................ES-37

ES.9.2 Scoping Comments ............................................................................................ES-38

List of Figures 

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

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 to be Implemented .................................................. ES-32

Table ES.7-2: Summary of Mitigation to be Implemented within Mitigation Areas ............................. ES-34
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-1 

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

The United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) prepared this Draft 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 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 FOR PROPOSED MILITARY READINESS TRAINING 

AND TESTING ACTIVITIES

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. 

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. The Navy 

is the lead agency for the Proposed Action and is responsible for the scope and content of this EIS/OEIS. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (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 Marine Mammal Protection Act (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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-2 

Executive Summary

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA = Operating Area, SINKEX = Sinking Exercises. 

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

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-3 

Executive Summary

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 Code of Federal Regulations 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 United States 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 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-4 

Executive Summary

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 3 (Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences) and Chapter 6 (Regulatory Considerations). 

 Abandoned Shipwreck Act 

 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-5 

Executive Summary

 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 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 inland 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. 

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. 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-6 

Executive Summary

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 

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 
Atlantic Fleet  

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS    June 2017

ES‐7

Executive Summary

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 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, in

Section 2.6.2 (Proposed Testing Activities).

ES.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Environmental effects which might result from the 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 Draft 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
Atlantic Fleet  

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS    June 2017

ES‐8

Executive Summary

based on evolving operational requirements, including those associated with new platforms and

systems not previously analyzed, and new inland 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

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 Draft 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.   

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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 potential stressors that air quality could potentially 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 potentially 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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)

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.

 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 measureable 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 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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

The Navy considered all potential stressors that vegetation could potentially 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): 

 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.

 Secondary: 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 roughly 1 percent. The net 

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

 Secondary: 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 potentially 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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. Therefore, 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. Offshore 

waters are considered to occur beyond areas near land where nutrients and habitat structures are typically more prevalent and

often result in increased invertebrate abundance. Exceptions occur at nearshore and inland 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 under these exceptions 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 do not

typically occur. Offshore waters occur beyond areas near land where nutrients and habitat structures are typically more 

prevalent and often result in increased invertebrate abundance. Exceptions occur where explosives are used on the bottom 

within nearshore or inland waters on or near sensitive 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 action produces electromagnetic and high-energy laser energies that briefly affect 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 been documented at much higher field strength than what the proposed action generates.

Though high-energy lasers can damage invertebrates, 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 where 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 (away from areas near 

land where increased nutrient availability and habitat complexity may result in increased invertebrate abundance) and near the 

surface where relatively few invertebrates occur, and at night when actions are not typically occurring. The majority of expended 

materials are used in areas far from nearshore and inland bottom areas where invertebrates are the most abundant. Exceptions 

occur for actions taking place within inland and nearshore waters over primarily soft bottom communities, such as related to 

vessel transits, inshore and nearshore vessel training, nearshore explosive ordnance disposal, 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 (e.g., wires, cables, decelerators/parachutes, 

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

Offshore waters occur beyond areas near land where nutrients and habitat structures are typically more prevalent and often 

result in increased invertebrate abundance. The risk of entangling invertebrates is minimized by the typically rigid nature of the 

expended structures (e.g., wires, cables), although decelerators/parachutes have mesh that could pose a risk to invertebrates

large and slow enough to be entangled (e.g., jellyfish). Deep water coral could also be entangled by drifting 

decelerators/parachutes, but a coincidence 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 in nearshore or inland locations where filter- or deposit-feeding invertebrates are more abundant relative to 

offshore waters. Furthermore, the vast majority of 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 is mostly limited to nearshore soft bottom habitats that recover quickly from disturbance. 

Explosive byproducts are rapidly diluted by vast quantities of relatively clean seawater and further explosive byproducts are 

mostly common seawater constituents. Contamination 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 vast 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 

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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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)

 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: 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 potentially 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):

 Explosives: Most of the high-explosive military expended materials would detonate at or near the water surface. The surface 

area of bottom substrate affected would be a tiny fraction of the total training and testing area available in the 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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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)

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 sonar 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 potentially 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 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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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) 

 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.

 Secondary: Effects on sediment or water quality would be minor, temporary, and localized and could have short-term, smallscale 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. While the types of expected impacts to any 

individual fish or group of fish capable of detecting sounds produced during 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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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)

 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 potentially 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 

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 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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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)

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes: 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 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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)

 Secondary: 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 wateror 

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.

 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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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)

 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: 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 potentially 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.

Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative):

 Acoustics: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose reptiles to multiple 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. Crocodilians considered in this analysis rarely occur in 

the Study Area, and few, if any, impacts are anticipated from acoustic stressors.

 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 death; however, only one loggerhead 

sea turtle mortality is predicted. If a sea turtle is farther from an explosion, the intense, impulsive, broadband sounds introduced 

into the marine environment may cause hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, or changes in behavior. Because the 

number of sea turtles potentially impacted by explosives is small, population level effects are unlikely. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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)

Crocodilians considered in this analysis would not co-occur with activities that use explosives, and no impacts on crocodilians are 

anticipated from explosives.

 Energy: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose sea turtles to multiple energy stressors. The likelihood 

and magnitude of energy impacts depends on the proximity of sea turtles 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 or use high-energy lasers are not anticipated to impact 

crocodilians because these activities would not co-occur with crocodilian habitats. 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. Crocodilians are expected to co-occur with vessels and in-water devices that move at low 

velocities, limiting potential behavioral impacts. No impacts on individual crocodilians or crocodilian populations are anticipated.

 Entanglement: Sea turtles 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 

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 because activities that 

expend materials that present a potential entanglement risk would not co-occur with crocodilian habitats.

 Ingestion: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose sea turtles to multiple ingestion stressors and 

associated impacts. The likelihood and magnitude of impacts depends on the physical properties of the military expended items, 

the feeding behaviors of sea turtles that occur in the Study Area, and the likelihood that a sea turtle would encounter and 

incidentally ingest the items. Adverse impacts from ingestion of military expended materials would be limited to the unlikely

event that a sea turtle 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 sea turtle would encounter and subsequently ingest a military expended item 

associated with Navy training and testing activities is considered low. Long-term consequences to sea turtle populations from 

ingestion stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities are not anticipated. Ingestion stressors are not anticipated 

to impact crocodilians because activities that expend materials that present a potential ingestion risk would not co-occur with 

crocodilian habitats.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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)

 Secondary: Sea turtles 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. 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 sea turtles. 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 sea turtles. 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 or long-term impacts on sea turtle populations. Secondary stressors discussed above would not co-occur 

with crocodilian habitats, and any indirect stressors to habitat or prey from training and testing activities are anticipated to be 

negligible.

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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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)

 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: Secondary impacts on reptiles resulting from Alternative 2 training and testing activities would be nearly identical to 

those from Alternative 1.

Section 3.9-Birds 

and Bats

The Navy considered all potential stressors that birds and bats could potentially 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. Bats may be exposed to in-air sounds from Navy training and testing activities. 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. If a detonation is sufficiently large or is near the water surface, however, 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 short-term. 

Although a few individuals may experience long-term impacts and potential mortality, population-level impacts are not 

expected.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

(continued)

 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.

 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, including ESA-listed bird species. 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: 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. While individual birds or bats may be impacted by training or testing 

activities, population level impacts are not expected.

 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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)

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. Likewise, the number and distribution of training and testing activities using in-air 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: 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 potentially 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 

adverse effects to known or unknown submerged cultural resources. Therefore, no submerged cultural resources are expected 

to be affected.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 3.10-

Cultural 

Resources

(continued)

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 potentially 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 airborne noise would be negligible. The public may intermittently hear 

noise from transiting ships or aircraft overflights if they are in the general vicinity of a training or testing activity, but these 

occurrences would be infrequent. The infrequent exposure to airborne noise would not result in a direct loss of income, revenue 

or employment, resource availability, or quality of experience. No impacts on sources for energy production and distribution, 

mineral extraction, commercial transportation and shipping, and aquaculture are anticipated.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 3.11 –

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 potentially 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):

 Underwater Energy: Impacts on public health and safety would be unlikely.

 In-Air Energy: Impacts to public health and safety would be unlikely.

 Physical Interactions: Impacts to public health and safety would be unlikely.

 Secondary Stressors: (sediments and water quality): Impacts on public health and safety would be unlikely.

Alternative 2:

 Underwater Energy: Same as Alternative 1.

 In-Air Energy: Same as Alternative 1.

 Physical Interactions: Same as Alternative 1.

 Secondary Stressors: Same as Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-28

Executive Summary

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 (see U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017). 

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. 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-29

Executive Summary

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 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 

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 inland 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-30

Executive Summary

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. 

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 already in significant decline. 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-31

Executive Summary

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. 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-32

Executive Summary

maximum extent practicable and to ensure that impacts do not become cumulatively significant to any 

marine resource. 

Marine mammals and sea turtles are the primary resources of concern for cumulative impacts analysis, 

however, the incremental contributions of the Proposed Action are not anticipated to meaningfully 

contribute to the decline of these populations or interfere with the recovery efforts thereof due to the 

implementation of standard operating procedures that reduce the likelihood of overlap in time and 

space and mitigation measures as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) that reduce the likelihood of 

impacts to both resources. 

The aggregate impacts of past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable future actions 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

In developing mitigation, the Navy considered the practicability of implementation and impacts on 

military readiness, in addition to the potential effectiveness of the mitigation in reducing or avoiding 

environmental impacts. In achieving this balance, the operational community, Navy planners, and Navy 

scientific experts worked very closely to develop mitigation options. The Navy has developed mitigation 

that is likely to be effective at avoiding or reducing impacts on one or more biological or cultural 

resources and is practicable to implement from a military readiness (i.e., operational) perspective. 

The Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences) environmental analyses 

indicate that certain acoustic, explosive, and physical disturbance and strike stressors have the potential 

to impact certain biological resources. The Navy designed procedural mitigation to avoid or reduce 

potential impacts from those stressors. 

The Navy will implement procedural mitigation under Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 of the Proposed 

Action whenever and wherever the applicable activities occur within the Study Area (see Table ES.7-1). 

For some activities the Navy will continue to implement extra procedural mitigation that was developed 

through previous consultations with NMFS or the USFWS that has been tailored to the discrete locations 

where the activities may occur. Details of the procedural mitigation that will be implemented are 

provided in Section 5.3 (Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented). 

Table ES.7-1: Summary of Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented 

Stressor or Activity Summary of Mitigation Requirements Resource Protection Focus

Environmental Awareness and 

Education

Afloat Environmental Compliance Training 

program for applicable personnel

Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Active Sonar Depending on sonar source: 1,000 yd. power 

down, 500 yd. power down, and 200 yd. shut 

down; or 200 yd. shut down

Marine mammals, sea 

turtles
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-33

Executive Summary

Table ES.7-1: Summary of Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented (continued)

Stressor or Activity Summary of Mitigation Requirements Resource Protection Focus

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

Birds (piping plover and 

other nesting birds)

Explosive Sonobuoys 600 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Explosive Torpedoes 2,100 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Explosive Medium- Caliber and 

Large-Caliber Projectiles

1,000 yd. (large-caliber projectiles), 600 yd. 

(medium-caliber projectiles during surfaceto-surface activities), or 200 yd. (mediumcaliber projectiles during air-to-surface 

activities)

Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Explosive Missiles and Rockets 900 yd. (0.6–20 lb. net explosive weight), or 

2,000 yd. (21–500 lb. net explosive weight)

Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Explosive Bombs 2,500 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Sinking Exercises 2.5 NM Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Explosive Mine Countermeasure 

and Neutralization Activities

600 yd. (0.1–5 lb. net explosive weight), or 

2,100 yd. (6–650 lb. net explosive weight)

Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Explosive Mine Neutralization 

Activities Involving Navy Divers

500 yd. (0.1–20 lb. net explosive weight for 

positive control charges), or 1,000 yd. (21–60 

lb. net explosive weight for positive control 

charges and all charges using time-delay 

fuses)

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), or 200 yd. (other marine 

mammals)

Marine mammals

Towed In-Water Devices 250 yd. Marine mammals

Small-, Medium-, and LargeCaliber Non-Explosive Practice 

Munitions

200 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-34

Executive Summary

Table ES.7-1: Summary of Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented (continued)

Stressor or Activity Summary of Mitigation Requirements Resource Protection Focus

Non-Explosive Missiles and 

Rockets

900 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine 

Shapes

1,000 yd. Marine mammals, sea 

turtles

To further avoid or reduce impacts on marine mammals within large habitat ranges, key areas of 

biological importance, and to avoid or reduce impacts on biological and cultural resources that are 

associated with the seafloor, the Navy will implement additional mitigation within designated mitigation 

areas for the following features: 

 Three North Atlantic right whale mitigation areas 

 Planning awareness mitigation areas for marine mammal habitat 

 Mitigation areas for biological and cultural resources associated with the seafloor 

Details of the mitigation that will be implemented within each mitigation area are provided in Section 

5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) and summarized in Table ES. 7-2. 

Tables ES.8-1 and Table ES.8-2 summarize the mitigation that the Navy will implement under Alternative 

1 or Alternative 2 of the Proposed Action. For specific requirements, additional information, and 

clarifications to the tables’ general summaries, see Section 5.3 (Procedural Mitigation to be 

Implemented) and Section 5.4 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented). 

Table ES.7-2: Summary of Mitigation to be Implemented within Mitigation Areas 

Mitigation Area Summary of Mitigation Requirements

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources

Shallow-water coral reefs  The Navy will not conduct precision anchoring (except in designated 

anchorages).

 The Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and 

neutralization activities or mine neutralization activities involving 

Navy divers.

 The Navy will not conduct explosive or non-explosive small-, medium-

, and large-caliber gunnery activities using a surface target.

 The Navy will not conduct explosive or non-explosive missile and 

rocket activities using a surface target.

 The Navy will not conduct explosive or non-explosive bombing or 

mine laying activities.

 Within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, 

the Navy will implement additional measures, 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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-35

Executive Summary

Table ES.7-2: Summary of Mitigation to be Implemented within Mitigation Areas

(continued)

Mitigation Area Summary of Mitigation Requirements

Live hard bottom  The Navy will not conduct precision anchoring (except in designated 

anchorages).

 The Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and 

neutralization activities or mine neutralization activities involving 

Navy divers.

 Within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, 

the Navy will implement additional measures, such as using real-time 

positioning and remote sensing information to avoid live hard bottom 

during deployment, installation, and recovery of anchors and minelike objects, and during deployment of bottom-crawling unmanned 

underwater vehicles.

Artificial reefs,

Shipwrecks

 The Navy will not conduct precision anchoring (except in designated 

anchorages).

 The Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and 

neutralization activities or mine neutralization activities involving 

Navy divers.

Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals

Northeast North Atlantic 

Right Whale Mitigation Area

The Navy will minimize use of active sonar to the maximum extent practicable.

 The Navy will not use explosives that detonate in the water.

 Non-explosive torpedo testing will be conducted during daylight 

hours in Beaufort sea state 3 or less; three Lookouts (one on a vessel 

and two in an aircraft during dedicated aerial surveys) and an 

additional Lookout on the submarine (when surfaced) will be used; 

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 for brief periods of time (e.g., 10–15 min.) during vessel target 

firing. 

 Navy will obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale sightings data.

 Vessels will implement speed reductions after they observe a North 

Atlantic right whale if they are 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 not plan major training exercises.

 The Navy will not conduct more than 200 hours of hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar per year.

Northeast Planning 

Awareness Mitigation Areas,

Mid-Atlantic Planning 

Awareness Mitigation Areas 

 The Navy will avoid planning major training exercises to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

 The Navy will not conduct more than four major training exercises 

per year (all or a portion of the exercise).

Southeast North Atlantic 

Right Whale Mitigation Area 

(November 15 through April 

15)

 The Navy will not conduct active sonar except as necessary for 

navigation and object detection training, and dipping sonar.

 The Navy will not expend explosive or non-explosive ordnance.

 The Navy will obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale sightings 

data. 

 Vessels will implement speed reductions after they observe a North 

Atlantic right whale if they are within 5 NM of a sighting reported 

within the past 12 hours and when operating at night or during 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-36

Executive Summary

Table ES.7-2: Summary of Mitigation to be Implemented within Mitigation Areas

(continued)

Mitigation Area Summary of Mitigation Requirements

periods of reduced visibility. 

 To the maximum extent practicable, vessels will minimize northsouth transits. 

Gulf of Mexico Planning 

Awareness Mitigation Areas

 The Navy will avoid planning major training exercises to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

 The Navy will not conduct more than one major training exercise per 

year (all or a portion of the exercise) in each area under Alternative 2; 

or any under Alternative 1.

As a result of the mitigation development and assessment process, the Navy found that some of the 

measures it considered were impracticable or not likely to be effective at avoiding or reducing impacts 

on biological resources. The measures considered but eliminated include: 

 Measures pertaining to the action alternatives 

o Reducing training and testing with active sonar, modifying sonar sound sources, and 

time-of-day restrictions 

o Replacement of sonar training with computer simulated activities 

o Restricting the use of explosives 

 Measures pertaining to procedural mitigation 

o Implementing active sonar ramp-up procedures 

o Restricting vessel speed 

o Increasing passive acoustic monitoring and visual observations 

o Increasing the size and types of mitigation zones beyond what is in Section 5.3 

(Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented) 

o Adopting mitigation measures of foreign navies 

o Increasing reporting requirements 

 Measures pertaining to oceanographic features or geographic locations oceanographic features 

or geographic locations”

ES.8 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

ES.8.1 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES AND 

REGULATIONS

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-37

Executive Summary

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 AND 

MITIGATION MEASURES

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 

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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ES-38

Executive Summary

On November 12, 2015, 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

i 

Table of Contents 

Draft 

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 for Proposed Military Readiness Training and Testing 

Activities .................................................................................................................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-5 

ES.4.2.1 Training ................................................................................................ES-5 

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

ES.4.3 Alternative 2 .........................................................................................................ES-6 

ES.4.3.1 Training ................................................................................................ES-6 

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

ES.5 Summary of Environmental Effects ...........................................................................ES-7 

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

ES.5.2 Acoustic and Explosive Analysis .........................................................................ES-28

ES.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................... ES-28

ES.6.1 Project and Other Activities Analyzed for Cumulative Impacts .........................ES-28

ES.6.2 Resource-Specific Cumulative Impact Conclusions ...........................................ES-28

ES.6.2.1 Air Quality ..........................................................................................ES-29

ES.6.2.2 Sediments and Water Quality ............................................................ES-29

ES.6.2.3 Vegetation .........................................................................................ES-29

ES.6.2.4 Invertebrates .....................................................................................ES-30

ES.6.2.5 Habitats ..............................................................................................ES-30

ES.6.2.6 Fishes ................................................................................................. ES-30

ES.6.2.7 Marine Mammals ...............................................................................ES-30

ES.6.2.8 Reptiles ..............................................................................................ES-30
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ii

Table of Contents 

ES.6.2.9 Birds and Bats ....................................................................................ES-31

ES.6.2.10 Cultural Resources .............................................................................ES-31

ES.6.2.11 Socioeconomics .................................................................................ES-31

ES.6.2.12 Public Health and Safety ....................................................................ES-31

ES.6.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................ES-31

ES.7 Mitigation ............................................................................................................. ES-32

ES.8 Other Considerations ............................................................................................. ES-36

ES.8.1 Consistency with Other Federal, State and Local Plans, Policies and 

Regulations ........................................................................................................ES-36

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

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity .............................ES-37

ES.8.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ....................................ES-37

ES.8.4 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives and 

Mitigation Measures ..........................................................................................ES-37

ES.9 Public Involvement ................................................................................................ ES-37

ES.9.1 Scoping Process ..................................................................................................ES-37

ES.9.2 Scoping Comments ............................................................................................ES-38

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 of and Need for Proposed Military Readiness Training and Testing 

Activities ...................................................................................................................1-6 

1.4.1 Why the Navy Trains ............................................................................................. 1-6 

1.4.2 Optimized Fleet Response Plan ............................................................................. 1-8 

1.4.2.1 Maintenance Phase ............................................................................... 1-9 

1.4.2.2 Basic Phase............................................................................................. 1-9 

1.4.2.3 Advanced Phase ................................................................................... 1-10

1.4.2.4 Integrated Phase .................................................................................. 1-10

1.4.2.5 Sustainment Phase .............................................................................. 1-11

1.4.3 Why the Navy Tests ............................................................................................. 1-11

1.4.3.1 Types of Testing ................................................................................... 1-12

1.4.3.2 Methods of Testing .............................................................................. 1-13

1.5 Overview and Strategic Importance of Existing Range Complexes and 

Testing Ranges ......................................................................................................... 1-14

1.6 The Environmental Planning Process ........................................................................ 1-15

1.6.1 National Environmental Policy Act Requirements ............................................... 1-15

1.6.2 Executive Order 12114 ......................................................................................... 1-15
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

iii

Table of Contents 

1.6.3 Other Environmental Requirements Considered ................................................ 1-16

1.6.3.1 Federal Statutes ................................................................................... 1-16

1.6.3.2 Executive Orders .................................................................................. 1-19

1.7 Scope and Content ................................................................................................... 1-20

1.8 Organization of this Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................................. 1-20

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................................................................................... 2-6 

2.1.5.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-11

2.1.5.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-11

2.1.6 Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range ........................................................ 2-11

2.1.6.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-11

2.1.6.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-11

2.1.7 Key West Range Complex .................................................................................... 2-12

2.1.7.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-12

2.1.7.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-12

2.1.8 Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range .................. 2-12

2.1.8.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-12

2.1.8.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-12

2.1.9 Gulf of Mexico Range Complex ............................................................................ 2-12

2.1.9.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-12

2.1.9.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-12

2.1.10 Inshore locations .................................................................................................. 2-13

2.1.10.1 Pierside Locations ................................................................................ 2-13
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

iv

Table of Contents 

2.1.10.2 Bays, Harbors, and Inland Waterways ................................................. 2-13

2.1.10.3 Civilian Ports ........................................................................................ 2-13

2.2 Primary Mission Areas ............................................................................................. 2-19

2.2.1 Air Warfare ........................................................................................................... 2-19

2.2.2 Amphibious Warfare ............................................................................................ 2-19

2.2.3 Anti-Submarine Warfare ...................................................................................... 2-20

2.2.4 Electronic Warfare ............................................................................................... 2-20

2.2.5 Expeditionary Warfare ......................................................................................... 2-21

2.2.6 Mine Warfare ....................................................................................................... 2-21

2.2.7 Surface Warfare ................................................................................................... 2-21

2.3 Proposed Activities .................................................................................................. 2-22

2.3.1 Proposed Training Activities ................................................................................ 2-22

2.3.2 Proposed Testing Activities .................................................................................. 2-28

2.3.2.1 Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities ................................... 2-28

2.3.2.2 Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities.................................. 2-31

2.3.2.3 Office of Naval Research Testing Activities ......................................... 2-34

2.3.3 Standard Operating Procedures .......................................................................... 2-34

2.3.3.1 Sea Space and Airspace Deconfliction ................................................. 2-35

2.3.3.2 Vessel Safety ........................................................................................ 2-36

2.3.3.3 Aircraft Safety ...................................................................................... 2-36

2.3.3.4 High-Powered Laser Safety .................................................................. 2-37

2.3.3.5 Weapons Firing Safety ......................................................................... 2-37

2.3.3.6 Target Deployment Safety ................................................................... 2-38

2.3.3.7 Swimmer Defense Activity Safety ........................................................ 2-38

2.3.3.8 Pierside Testing Safety ......................................................................... 2-38

2.3.3.9 Underwater Detonation Safety ........................................................... 2-38

2.3.3.10 Sonic Booms ......................................................................................... 2-39

2.3.3.11 Unmanned Aerial, Surface, and Subsurface Vehicle Safety ................ 2-39

2.3.3.12 Towed In-Water Device Safety ............................................................ 2-39

2.3.3.13 Ship Shock Trial Safety ......................................................................... 2-39

2.3.3.14 Pile Driving Safety ................................................................................ 2-40

2.3.3.15 Sinking Exercise Safety ......................................................................... 2-40

2.3.3.16 Coastal Zone ........................................................................................ 2-40

2.3.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 2-44

2.4 Action Alternative Development .............................................................................. 2-45

2.4.1 Training ................................................................................................................ 2-46

2.4.2 Testing .................................................................................................................. 2-49

2.4.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration .......................................... 2-50
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

v 

Table of Contents 

2.4.3.1 Alternative Training and Testing Locations ......................................... 2-50

2.4.3.2 Simulated Training and Testing Only ................................................... 2-51

2.4.3.3 Training and Testing Without the Use of Active Sonar ....................... 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 .................................................................................................. 2-60

2.6 Proposed Training and Testing Activities for Both Alternatives .................................. 2-61

2.6.1 Proposed Training Activities ................................................................................ 2-61

2.6.2 Proposed Testing Activities .................................................................................. 2-69

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 Marine Species Density Database....................................................... 3.0-2 

3.0.1.3 Developing Acoustic and Explosive Criteria and Thresholds .............. 3.0-3 

3.0.1.4 Aquatic Habitats Database ................................................................. 3.0-4 

3.0.2 Ecological Characterization of the Study Area .................................................... 3.0-4 

3.0.2.1 Biogeographic Classifications.............................................................. 3.0-4 

3.0.2.2 Bathymetry ....................................................................................... 3.0-12

3.0.2.3 Currents, Circulation Patterns, and Water Masses .......................... 3.0-14

3.0.2.4 Ocean Fronts ..................................................................................... 3.0-27

3.0.2.5 Abiotic Substrate .............................................................................. 3.0-27

3.0.3 Overall Approach to Analysis ............................................................................ 3.0-28

3.0.3.1 Resources and Issues Evaluated ....................................................... 3.0-31

3.0.3.2 Resources and Issues Eliminated from Further 

Consideration ................................................................................... 3.0-31

3.0.3.3 Identifying Stressors for Analysis ...................................................... 3.0-31
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

vi

Table of Contents 

3.0.3.4 Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Individual Stressors .......... 3.0-104 

3.0.3.5 Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Multiple Stressors ............ 3.0-105 

3.0.3.6 Biological Resource Methods ......................................................... 3.0-106 

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 ............................................................................. 3.1-8 

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 ....................................................................................... 3.1-12

3.1.2.1 General Background ......................................................................... 3.1-12

3.1.2.2 Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................... 3.1-13

3.1.2.3 Existing Air Quality ............................................................................ 3.1-16

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.1-22

3.1.3.1 Criteria Air Pollutants ........................................................................ 3.1-22

3.1.3.2 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ........................................... 3.1-28

3.1.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Air Quality .................................................. 3.1-28

3.1.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1 ................... 3.1-29

3.1.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2 ................... 3.1-29

3.1.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative ........................................................................................ 3.1-29

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.................................................................................... 3.2-26

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.2-39

3.2.3.1 Explosives and Explosives Byproducts .............................................. 3.2-40

3.2.3.2 Chemicals Other Than Explosives ..................................................... 3.2-49

3.2.3.3 Metals ............................................................................................... 3.2-54

3.2.3.4 Other Materials ................................................................................. 3.2-62

3.2.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Sediments and Water Quality .................... 3.2-68

3.2.4.1 Combined Impact of all Stressors under Alternative 1 ..................... 3.2-68
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

vii 

Table of Contents 

3.2.4.2 Combined Impact of all Stressors under Alternative 2 ..................... 3.2-69

3.2.4.3 Combined Impact of all Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative ........................................................................................ 3.2-69

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 .................... 3.3-10

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.3-19

3.3.3.1 Acoustic Stressors ............................................................................. 3.3-20

3.3.3.2 Explosive Stressors ............................................................................ 3.3-20

3.3.3.3 Energy Stressors ................................................................................ 3.3-26

3.3.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ........................................ 3.3-26

3.3.3.5 Entanglement Stressors .................................................................... 3.3-43

3.3.3.6 Ingestion Stressors ............................................................................ 3.3-43

3.3.3.7 Secondary Stressors .......................................................................... 3.3-43

3.3.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Vegetation .................................................. 3.3-44

3.3.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 .................. 3.3-45

3.3.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 .................. 3.3-46

3.3.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ........................................................................................ 3.3-46

3.3.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations .......................................................... 3.3-46

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 ............................................ 3.4-13

3.4.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act .................... 3.4-27

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.4-37

3.4.3.1 Acoustic Stressors ............................................................................. 3.4-37

3.4.3.2 Explosive Stressors ............................................................................ 3.4-59

3.4.3.3 Energy Stressors ................................................................................ 3.4-66

3.4.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ........................................ 3.4-71

3.4.3.5 Entanglement Stressors .................................................................... 3.4-93

3.4.3.6 Ingestion Stressors .......................................................................... 3.4-103 

3.4.3.7 Secondary Stressors ........................................................................ 3.4-111 

3.4.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Invertebrates ............................................ 3.4-116 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

viii 

Table of Contents 

3.4.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................ 3.4-116 

3.4.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................ 3.4-117 

3.4.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ...................................................................................... 3.4-117 

3.4.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations ........................................................ 3.4-118 

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 .......................................................................... 3.5-28

3.5.3.1 Acoustic Stressors ............................................................................. 3.5-28

3.5.3.2 Explosive Stressors ............................................................................ 3.5-28

3.5.3.3 Energy Stressors ................................................................................ 3.5-36

3.5.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ........................................ 3.5-36

3.5.3.5 Entanglement Stressors .................................................................... 3.5-58

3.5.3.6 Ingestion Stressors ............................................................................ 3.5-58

3.5.3.7 Secondary Stressors .......................................................................... 3.5-58

3.5.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Habitats ...................................................... 3.5-58

3.5.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 .................. 3.5-58

3.5.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 .................. 3.5-59

3.5.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ........................................................................................ 3.5-59

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 .................... 3.6-44

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.6-61

3.6.3.1 Acoustic Stressors ............................................................................. 3.6-62

3.6.3.2 Explosive Stressors .......................................................................... 3.6-107 

3.6.3.3 Energy Stressors .............................................................................. 3.6-122 

3.6.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ...................................... 3.6-131 

3.6.3.5 Entanglement Stressors .................................................................. 3.6-146 

3.6.3.6 Ingestion Stressors .......................................................................... 3.6-157 

3.6.3.7 Secondary Stressors ........................................................................ 3.6-169 

3.6.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Fishes ........................................................ 3.6-174 

3.6.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................ 3.6-174 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ix

Table of Contents 

3.6.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................ 3.6-175 

3.6.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ...................................................................................... 3.6-175 

3.6.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations ........................................................ 3.6-175 

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 ............................................ 3.7-27 

3.7.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act .................... 3.7-48

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.7-95

3.7.3.1 Acoustic Stressors ............................................................................. 3.7-96

3.7.3.2 Explosive Stressors .......................................................................... 3.7-478 

3.7.3.3 Energy Stressors .............................................................................. 3.7-651 

3.7.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ...................................... 3.7-659 

3.7.3.5 Entanglement Stressors .................................................................. 3.7-687 

3.7.3.6 Ingestion Stressors .......................................................................... 3.7-701 

3.7.3.7 Secondary Stressors ........................................................................ 3.7-715 

3.7.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Marine Mammals ..................................... 3.7-721 

3.7.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................ 3.7-721 

3.7.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................ 3.7-722 

3.7.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ...................................................................................... 3.7-723 

3.7.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations ........................................................ 3.7-723 

3.7.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act Determinations ........................................... 3.7-723

3.8 Reptiles .................................................................................................................. 3.8-1

3.8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3.8-3 

3.8.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3.8-3 

3.8.2.1 General Background ........................................................................... 3.8-3 

3.8.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species ............................................ 3.8-12

3.8.2.3 Species Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act .................... 3.8-40

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.8-40

3.8.3.1 Acoustic Stressors ............................................................................. 3.8-41

3.8.3.2 Explosive Stressors ............................................................................ 3.8-76

3.8.3.3 Energy Stressors .............................................................................. 3.8-114 

3.8.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ...................................... 3.8-123 

3.8.3.5 Entanglement Stressors .................................................................. 3.8-141 

3.8.3.6 Ingestion Stressors .......................................................................... 3.8-154 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

x 

Table of Contents 

3.8.3.7 Secondary Stressors ........................................................................ 3.8-166 

3.8.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Reptiles ..................................................... 3.8-172 

3.8.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................ 3.8-172 

3.8.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................ 3.8-173 

3.8.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ...................................................................................... 3.8-174 

3.8.4.4 Endangered Species Act Determinations ....................................... 3.8-174 

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 ............................................ 3.9-15

3.9.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act .................... 3.9-32

3.9.2.4 Migratory Birds ................................................................................. 3.9-46

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 ................................................................................ 3.9-87

3.9.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ........................................ 3.9-95

3.9.3.5 Entanglement Stressors .................................................................. 3.9-109 

3.9.3.6 Ingestion Stressors .......................................................................... 3.9-114 

3.9.3.7 Secondary Stressors ........................................................................ 3.9-120 

3.9.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Birds and Bats ........................................... 3.9-122 

3.9.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................ 3.9-122 

3.9.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................ 3.9-123 

3.9.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ...................................................................................... 3.9-123 

3.9.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations ........................................................ 3.9-124 

3.9.6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act Determinations ..................................................... 3.9-124 

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 ............................................................ 3.10-8 

3.10.2 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3.10-8 

3.10.2.1 Submerged Prehistoric Resources .................................................... 3.10-8 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xi

Table of Contents 

3.10.2.2 Known Wrecks, Obstructions, Occurrences, or “Unknowns”........... 3.10-8 

3.10.2.3 Tortugas Military Operations Area ................................................. 3.10-16

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 3.10-16

3.10.3.1 Explosive Stressors .......................................................................... 3.10-17

3.10.3.2 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ...................................... 3.10-21

3.10.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Cultural Resources ................................... 3.10-28

3.10.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1 ................. 3.10-28

3.10.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2 ................. 3.10-28

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 ............................................ 3.11-22

3.11.2.5 Aquaculture .................................................................................... 3.11-32

3.11.2.6 Tourism ........................................................................................... 3.11-33

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 3.11-35

3.11.3.1 Impacts on Accessibility .................................................................. 3.11-36

3.11.3.2 Impacts from Airborne Acoustics ................................................... 3.11-46

3.11.3.3 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ...................................... 3.11-50

3.11.4 Secondary Stressors ........................................................................................ 3.11-56

3.11.5 Summary of Potential Impacts on Socioeconomics ........................................ 3.11-57

3.11.5.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................ 3.11-57

3.11.5.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................ 3.11-58

3.11.5.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ...................................................................................... 3.11-58

3.12 Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.12.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3.12-1 

3.12.2 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3.12-2 

3.12.2.1 General Background ......................................................................... 3.12-2 

3.12.2.2 Safety and Inspection Procedures .................................................... 3.12-3 

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.12-8 

3.12.3.1 Underwater Energy ........................................................................... 3.12-8 

3.12.3.2 In-Air Energy ................................................................................... 3.12-11
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xii 

Table of Contents 

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 ..................................................... 4-25

4.4 Resource-Specific Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................... 4-25

4.4.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 4-25

4.4.2 Sediments and Water Quality .............................................................................. 4-27

4.4.3 Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 4-29

4.4.4 Invertebrates ........................................................................................................ 4-30

4.4.5 Habitats ................................................................................................................ 4-32

4.4.6 Fishes ................................................................................................................... 4-33

4.4.7 Marine Mammals ................................................................................................. 4-35

4.4.7.1 Region of Influence .............................................................................. 4-35

4.4.7.2 Resource Trends .................................................................................. 4-35

4.4.7.3 Impacts of Other Actions ..................................................................... 4-36

4.4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts on Marine Mammals ........................................... 4-43

4.4.8 Reptiles ................................................................................................................ 4-44

4.4.8.1 Region of Influence .............................................................................. 4-44

4.4.8.2 Resource Trends .................................................................................. 4-44

4.4.8.3 Impacts of Other Actions ..................................................................... 4-45

4.4.8.4 Impacts of the Proposed Action That May Contribute to 

Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-49

4.4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Reptiles .......................................................... 4-51

4.4.9 Birds and Bats ...................................................................................................... 4-52

4.4.10 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 4-53

4.4.11 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................... 4-53

4.4.12 Public Health and Safety ...................................................................................... 4-54

4.5 Summary of Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................. 4-54
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xiii 

Table of Contents 

5 MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Monitoring, Research, and Reporting Initiatives ................................................... 5-2 

5.1.1.1 Marine Species Research and Monitoring Programs ............................ 5-2 

5.1.1.2 Training and Testing Activity Reports .................................................... 5-6 

5.1.1.3 Incident Reports..................................................................................... 5-6 

5.2 Mitigation Development ............................................................................................5-7

5.2.1 Procedural Mitigation Development ..................................................................... 5-7 

5.2.2 Mitigation Area Development ............................................................................. 5-10

5.2.3 Practicability of Implementation ......................................................................... 5-10

5.3 Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented ................................................................ 5-11

5.3.1 Environmental Awareness and Education ........................................................... 5-12

5.3.2 Acoustic Stressors ................................................................................................ 5-13

5.3.2.1 Active Sonar ......................................................................................... 5-13

5.3.2.2 Air Guns ............................................................................................... 5-16

5.3.2.3 Pile Driving ........................................................................................... 5-17

5.3.2.4 Weapons Firing Noise .......................................................................... 5-19

5.3.2.5 Aircraft Overflight Noise ...................................................................... 5-20

5.3.3 Explosive Stressors ............................................................................................... 5-20

5.3.3.1 Explosive Sonobuoys............................................................................ 5-21

5.3.3.2 Explosive Torpedoes ............................................................................ 5-22

5.3.3.3 Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber Projectiles .................... 5-24

5.3.3.4 Explosive Missiles and Rockets ............................................................ 5-26

5.3.3.5 Explosive Bombs .................................................................................. 5-28

5.3.3.6 Sinking Exercises .................................................................................. 5-29

5.3.3.7 Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization 

Activities .............................................................................................. 5-31

5.3.3.8 Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving Navy 

Divers ................................................................................................... 5-33

5.3.3.9 Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer Grenades .................. 5-36

5.3.3.10 Line Charge Testing .............................................................................. 5-37

5.3.3.11 Ship Shock Trials .................................................................................. 5-38

5.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ........................................................... 5-40

5.3.4.1 Vessel Movement ................................................................................ 5-41

5.3.4.2 Towed In-Water Devices ...................................................................... 5-42

5.3.4.3 Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive Practice 

Munitions ............................................................................................ 5-42

5.3.4.4 Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets .................................................... 5-44
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xiv 

Table of Contents 

5.3.4.5 Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes.............................................. 5-45

5.4 Mitigation Areas to be Implemented ........................................................................ 5-46

5.4.1 Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources ............................................................. 5-46

5.4.1.1 Resource Description ........................................................................... 5-47

5.4.1.2 Mitigation Area Assessment ................................................................ 5-47

5.4.2 Mitigation Areas off the Northeastern United States ......................................... 5-52

5.4.2.1 Resource Description ........................................................................... 5-54

5.4.2.2 Mitigation Area Assessment ................................................................ 5-60

5.4.3 Mitigation Areas off the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States ............. 5-64

5.4.3.1 Resource Description ........................................................................... 5-66

5.4.3.2 Mitigation Area Assessment ................................................................ 5-69

5.4.4 Mitigation Areas in the Gulf of Mexico ................................................................ 5-73

5.4.4.1 Resource Description ........................................................................... 5-75

5.4.4.2 Mitigation Area Assessment ................................................................ 5-77

5.5 Measures Considered but Eliminated ....................................................................... 5-79

5.5.1 Measures Pertaining to Acoustic and Explosive Stressors ................................... 5-79

5.5.1.1 Reducing Training and Testing with Active Sonar, Modifying 

Sonar Sound Sources, and Time-of-Day Restrictions .......................... 5-80

5.5.1.2 Replacing Active Sonar Training with Computer Simulated 

Activities .............................................................................................. 5-81

5.5.1.3 Restricting the Use of Explosives ......................................................... 5-81

5.5.2 Measures Pertaining to Procedural Mitigation.................................................... 5-82

5.5.2.1 Implementing Active Sonar Ramp-Up Procedures .............................. 5-82

5.5.2.2 Restricting Vessel Speed ...................................................................... 5-83

5.5.2.3 Increasing Passive Acoustic Monitoring and Visual 

Observations ........................................................................................ 5-83

5.5.2.4 Increasing the Size and Types of Mitigation Zones.............................. 5-85

5.5.2.5 Adopting Mitigation Measures of Foreign Navies ............................... 5-86

5.5.2.6 Increasing Reporting Requirements .................................................... 5-87

5.5.3 Measures Pertaining to Oceanographic Features or Geographic 

Locations .............................................................................................................. 5-87

5.6 Mitigation Summary ................................................................................................ 5-89

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 ......................................................................................... 6-6 

6.1.2.1 State Marine Protected Areas ............................................................. 6-36

6.1.2.2 National Estuarine Research Reserves ................................................ 6-36
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xv

Table of Contents 

6.1.2.3 National Wildlife Refuges .................................................................... 6-36

6.1.2.4 Gear Restricted Areas .......................................................................... 6-36

6.1.2.5 National Parks ...................................................................................... 6-36

6.1.2.6 National Marine Sanctuaries ............................................................... 6-37

6.1.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ........................ 6-60

6.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity....................................... 6-61

6.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................. 6-61

6.4 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives and 

Efficiency Initiatives ................................................................................................. 6-62

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 .................................................................................. 8-12

8.2.1.3 Newspaper Advertisements ................................................................ 8-15

8.2.2 Project Video ........................................................................................................ 8-16

8.2.3 Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................... 8-16

8.2.3.1 A True No Action Alternative Analysis ................................................. 8-17

8.2.3.2 Time-Area Management and Mitigation Areas ................................... 8-17

8.2.3.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................. 8-17

8.2.3.4 Range of Alternatives ........................................................................... 8-17

8.2.3.5 Impacts of Training and Testing to Marine Mammals ......................... 8-17

8.2.3.6 Impacts of Training and Testing to Marine Life ................................... 8-17

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-13

A.1.5 Mine Warfare Systems ........................................................................................ A-13

A.1.6 Military Expended Materials ............................................................................... A-16

A.2 Training Activities ................................................................................................... A-17

A.2.1 Major Training Exercises ..................................................................................... A-17
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xvi 

Table of Contents 

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 and 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

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-43

A.2.3.8 Missile Exercise Surface-to-Air ........................................................... A-45

A.2.4 Amphibious Warfare Training ............................................................................. A-47

A.2.4.1 Amphibious Assault ............................................................................ A-47

A.2.4.2 Amphibious Marine Expeditionary Unit Integration Exercise ............ A-49

A.2.4.3 Amphibious Raid ................................................................................. A-50

A.2.4.4 Amphibious Vehicle Maneuvers ......................................................... A-52

A.2.4.5 Humanitarian Assistance Operations ................................................. A-53

A.2.4.6 Marine Expeditionary Unit Certification Exercise ............................... A-54

A.2.4.7 Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise – At Sea ..................................... A-56

A.2.4.8 Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise – Land-Based Target ................. A-58

A.2.5 Anti-Submarine Warfare Training ....................................................................... A-60

A.2.5.1 Torpedo Exercise – Helicopter ............................................................ A-61

A.2.5.2 Torpedo Exercise – Maritime Patrol Aircraft ...................................... A-63

A.2.5.3 Torpedo Exercise – Ship...................................................................... A-65

A.2.5.4 Torpedo Exercise – Submarine ........................................................... A-67

A.2.5.5 Tracking Exercise – Helicopter ............................................................ A-69

A.2.5.6 Tracking Exercise – Maritime Patrol Aircraft ...................................... A-71

A.2.5.7 Tracking Exercise – Submarine ........................................................... A-73

A.2.5.8 Tracking Exercise – Ship...................................................................... A-75

A.2.6 Electronic Warfare .............................................................................................. A-77

A.2.6.1 Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise – Aircraft ....................................... A-77
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xvii 

Table of Contents 

A.2.6.2 Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise – Ship............................................. A-79

A.2.6.3 Counter Targeting Flare Exercise ........................................................ A-81

A.2.6.4 Electronic Warfare Operations ........................................................... A-83

A.2.6.5 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) ............. A-85

A.2.7 Expeditionary Warfare ........................................................................................ A-87

A.2.7.1 Dive and Salvage Operations .............................................................. A-87

A.2.7.2 Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer Grenades ................. A-88

A.2.7.3 Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Air .................................................. A-90

A.2.7.4 Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Surface and Subsurface ................. A-92

A.2.7.5 Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Swimmer/Diver.............................. A-93

A.2.7.6 Underwater Construction Team Training ........................................... A-94

A.2.8 Mine Warfare ...................................................................................................... A-95

A.2.8.1 Airborne Mine Countermeasure – Mine Detection ............................ A-95

A.2.8.2 Airborne Mine Countermeasure – Towed Mine 

Neutralization ..................................................................................... A-97

A.2.8.3 Civilian Port Defense – Homeland Security AntiTerrorism/Force Protection Exercise .................................................. A-99

A.2.8.4 Coordinated Unit-Level Helicopter Airborne Mine 

Countermeasures Exercise ............................................................... A-101

A.2.8.5 Mine Countermeasures – Ship Sonar ............................................... A-103

A.2.8.6 Mine Countermeasures – Mine Neutralization – Remotely 

Operated Vehicle .............................................................................. A-105

A.2.8.7 Mine Laying ....................................................................................... A-107

A.2.8.8 Mine Neutralization – Explosive Ordnance Disposal ........................ A-109

A.2.8.9 Underwater Mine Countermeasure Raise, Tow, Beach and 

Exploitation Operations .................................................................... A-111

A.2.9 Surface Warfare Training .................................................................................. A-113

A.2.9.1 Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface ...................................................... A-113

A.2.9.2 Fast Attack Craft and Fast Inshore Attack Craft ................................ A-115

A.2.9.3 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Medium-Caliber ............................ A-116

A.2.9.4 Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Surface Small-Caliber ................................ A-118

A.2.9.5 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Medium-Caliber ............ A-120

A.2.9.6 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Boat Small-Caliber ................. A-122

A.2.9.7 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Large-Caliber ................. A-124

A.2.9.8 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Medium-Caliber ............ A-126

A.2.9.9 Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship Small-Caliber ................. A-128

A.2.9.10 Integrated Live Fire ........................................................................... A-131

A.2.9.11 Laser Targeting – Aircraft .................................................................. A-133
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xviii 

Table of Contents 

A.2.9.12 Laser Targeting – Ship....................................................................... A-135

A.2.9.13 Maritime Security Operations .......................................................... A-137

A.2.9.14 Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface ......................................................... A-139

A.2.9.15 Missile Exercise Air-to-Surface – Rocket ........................................... A-141

A.2.9.16 Missile Exercise Surface-to-Surface .................................................. A-143

A.2.9.17 Sinking Exercise ................................................................................. A-145

A.2.10 Other Training Exercises ................................................................................... A-147

A.2.10.1 Elevated Causeway System ............................................................... A-147

A.2.10.2 Precision Anchoring .......................................................................... A-149

A.2.10.3 Search and Rescue ............................................................................ A-150

A.2.10.4 Submarine Navigation ...................................................................... A-152

A.2.10.5 Submarine Sonar Maintenance and Systems Checks ....................... A-154

A.2.10.6 Submarine Under Ice Certification ................................................... A-155

A.2.10.7 Surface Ship Object Detection .......................................................... A-156

A.2.10.8 Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance and Systems Checks .................... A-158

A.2.10.9 Waterborne Training ........................................................................ A-160

A.3 Testing Activities................................................................................................... A-162

A.3.1 Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities ................................................ A-162

A.3.1.1 Air Warfare ....................................................................................... A-162

A.3.1.2 Anti-Submarine Warfare ................................................................... A-176

A.3.1.3 Electronic Warfare ............................................................................ A-187

A.3.1.4 Mine Warfare .................................................................................... A-193

A.3.1.5 Surface Warfare ................................................................................ A-203

A.3.1.6 Other Testing Activities ..................................................................... A-215

A.3.2 Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities ............................................... A-225

A.3.2.1 Anti-Submarine Warfare ................................................................... A-225

A.3.2.2 Electronic Warfare ............................................................................ A-241

A.3.2.3 Mine Warfare .................................................................................... A-243

A.3.2.4 Surface Warfare ................................................................................ A-249

A.3.2.4 Unmanned Systems ......................................................................... A-259

A.3.2.5 Vessel Evaluation .............................................................................. A-267

A.3.2.6 Submarine Sea Trials – Weapons System Testing ............................ A-287

A.3.2.7 Other Testing .................................................................................... A-293

A.3.3 Office of Naval Research Testing Activities ....................................................... A-309

A.3.3.1 Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Technology ..................... A-309

APPENDIX B ACTIVITY STRESSOR MATRICES ..........................................................................................
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xix 

Table of Contents 

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 Ordnance and Munitions Emissions ...................................................................... C-2 

C.1.4 Record of Non-Applicability ................................................................................... C-2 

C.1.5 Emissions Estimates Spreadsheets ........................................................................ C-3 

C.2 Record of Non-Applicability for Clean Air Act Conformity .......................................... C-35

APPENDIX D ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE CONCEPTS ........................................................................ D-1 

D.1 Terminology ............................................................................................................. D-1

D.1.1 Sound .................................................................................................................... D-1 

D.1.2 Signal versus Noise ................................................................................................ D-1 

D.1.3 Frequency and Wavelength .................................................................................. D-2 

D.1.4 Sound Amplitude .................................................................................................. D-2 

D.1.5 Impulsive versus Non-Impulsive Sounds............................................................... D-3 

D.1.6 Acoustic Impedance .............................................................................................. D-3 

D.1.7 Duty Cycle ............................................................................................................. D-3 

D.1.8 Resonance ............................................................................................................. D-3 

D.2 Sound Metrics .......................................................................................................... D-4

D.2.1 Pressure ................................................................................................................ D-4 

D.2.2 Sound Pressure Level ............................................................................................ D-4 

D.2.3 Sound Exposure Level ........................................................................................... D-5 

D.2.4 Particle Motion ..................................................................................................... D-7 

D.2.5 Impulse .................................................................................................................. D-7 

D.3 Predicting How Sound Travels ................................................................................... D-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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xx

Table of Contents 

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-8

E.3 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Under Navy Testing Activities ................................................................................... E-12

E.4 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five Year Period from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Under Navy Testing Activities ...................................................... E-19

E.5 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Air Guns Under Navy Training 

Activities ................................................................................................................. E-23

E.6 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Air Guns Under Navy Testing 

Activities ................................................................................................................. E-23

E.7 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five year Period from Air Guns 

Under Navy Testing Activities ................................................................................... E-25

E.8 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Pile Driving Under Navy Training 

Activities ................................................................................................................. E-25

E.9 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five year Period from Pile Driving 

Under Navy Training Activities ................................................................................. E-27

E.10 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Pile Driving Under Navy Testing 

Activities ................................................................................................................. E-27

E.11 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Explosives Under Navy Training 

Activities ................................................................................................................. E-27

E.12 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five year Period from Explosives 

Under Navy Training Activities ................................................................................. E-38

E.13 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Explosives Under Navy Testing 

Activities (Excluding Ship Shock Trials) ...................................................................... E-46

E.14 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five Year Period from Explosives 

Under Navy Testing Activities (Excluding Ship Shock Trials) ....................................... E-57

E.15 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Ship Shock Trials Under Navy 

Testing Activities...................................................................................................... E-65

E.16 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under 

Navy Training and Testing Activities ......................................................................... E-69

E.17 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Five Year Period from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Under Navy Training and Testing Activities ............................................ E-69
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxi

Table of Contents 

E.18 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Air Guns Under Navy Training and 

Testing Activities...................................................................................................... E-70

E.19 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Pile Driving Under Navy Training and 

Testing Activities...................................................................................................... E-70

E.20 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Explosives Under Navy Training and 

Testing Activities...................................................................................................... E-70

E.21 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Five year Period from Explosives Under 

Navy Training and Testing Activities ......................................................................... E-71

E.22 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Ship Shock Trials Under Navy Testing 

Activities ................................................................................................................. E-72

APPENDIX F MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIAL AND DIRECT STRIKE IMPACT ANALYSIS ........................ F-1

F.1 Estimating the Impact of Military Expended Materials and Underwater 

Explosions on Abiotic Substrates as a Habitat for Biological Resources ........................ F-1

F.1.1 Military Expended and Recovered Material – Training Activities .......................... F-8 

F.1.2 Military Expended and Recovered Materials – Testing Activities........................ F-27

F.2 Impacts to Abiotic Substrate – Training and Testing Activities ................................... F-41

F.3 Statistical and Probability Analysis for Estimating Direct Strike Impact and 

Number of Potential Exposures From Military Expended Materials ........................... F-53

F.3.1 Direct Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... F-54

F.3.2 Parameters for Analysis ....................................................................................... F-56

F.3.3 Input Data ............................................................................................................ F-57

F.3.4 Output Data ......................................................................................................... F-57

F.4 Poisson Probability of Direct Vessel Strike with Marine Mammals............................. F-59

APPENDIX G FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES ....................................................................................... G-1 

APPENDIX H PUBLIC COMMENT RESPONSES ................................................................................... H-1 

APPENDIX I GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM DATA SOURCES.................................................... I-1 

APPENDIX J AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE ......................................................................................... J-1 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxii 

Table of Contents 

List of Figures 

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

Figure 1.2-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area..................................................................... 1-3 

Figure 1.4-1: Optimized Fleet Response Plan ............................................................................................ 1-9 

Figure 1.6-1: National Environmental Policy Act Process ........................................................................ 1-15

Figure 2.1-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area..................................................................... 2-3 

Figure 2.1-2: Study Area, Mid-Atlantic Region .......................................................................................... 2-7 

Figure 2.1-3: Study Area, Southeast Region .............................................................................................. 2-9 

Figure 2.1-4: Study Area, Gulf of Mexico Region ..................................................................................... 2-15

Figure 2.1-5: Study Area, Inshore Locations ............................................................................................ 2-17

Figure 2.3-1: Ship Shock Trial and Sinking Exercise Areas with Standard Operating 

Procedures .......................................................................................................................... 2-41

Figure 2.4-1: Geographic Areas Where Navy Proposes to Conduct Mitigation Measures ...................... 2-47

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 .................................................................... 2-59

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

Figure 3.0-1: The Study Area with Large Marine Ecosystems and Open Ocean Areas ........................... 3.0-7 

Figure 3.0-2: Three-Dimensional Representation of the Intertidal Zone (shoreline), 

Continental Margin, Abyssal Zone, and Water Column Zones ........................................ 3.0-13

Figure 3.0-3: Bathymetry of the Entire Study Area............................................................................... 3.0-15

Figure 3.0-4: Bathymetry of the Northeast Portion of the Study Area................................................. 3.0-17

Figure 3.0-5: Bathymetry of the Southeast and Caribbean Portions of the Study Area....................... 3.0-19

Figure 3.0-6: Bathymetry of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea Portions of the Study 

Area .................................................................................................................................. 3.0-21

Figure 3.0-7: Major Currents in the Study Area .................................................................................... 3.0-25

Figure 3.0-8: Average Sea Surface Temperature in the Study Area (2011–2015) ................................ 3.0-29

Figure 3.0-9: Traffic and Broadband Radiated Noise During a Composite Training Unit 

Exercise in the Southern California Range Complex ........................................................ 3.0-47

Figure 3.0-10: Relative Distribution of Commercial Vessel Traffic in Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Areas .................................................................................................. 3.0-49
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxiii 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.0-11: Relative Distribution of U.S. Navy Vessel Traffic in Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing Study Areas ......................................................................................................... 3.0-50

Figure 3.0-12: Gun Blast and Projectile from a 5-in./54 Navy Gun....................................................... 3.0-55

Figure 3.0-13: Sonobuoy Launch Depicting the Relative Size of a Parachute ...................................... 3.0-97

Figure 3.0-14: Flow Chart of the Evaluation Process of Sound-Producing Activities ......................... 3.0-109 

Figure 3.0-15: Two Hypothetical Threshold Shifts .............................................................................. 3.0-112 

Figure 3.1-1: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 1 and 2 ............... 3.1-18

Figure 3.1-2: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 3 ......................... 3.1-19

Figure 3.1-3: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 4 ......................... 3.1-20

Figure 3.1-4: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 6 ......................... 3.1-21

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 ............................. 3.2-14

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 .................................................. 3.2-21

Figure 3.2-5: Marine Marker Deposited on a Mound at 300 meter Depth .......................................... 3.2-25

Figure 3.2-6: Water Quality Ratings for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Coast ................................... 3.2-29

Figure 3.2-7: Water Quality Ratings for the Southeast Coast ............................................................... 3.2-33

Figure 3.2-8: Water Quality Ratings for the Gulf of Mexico Coast ....................................................... 3.2-35

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 .................................................. 3.3-16

Figure 3.3-3: Seagrass Occurrence in South Florida ............................................................................. 3.3-17

Figure 3.3-4: Seagrass Occurrence in the Gulf of Mexico ..................................................................... 3.3-18

Figure 3.4-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Elkhorn and Staghorn Coral Within the Study Area ................ 3.4-17

Figure 3.4-2: Prediction of Distance to 90 Percent Survivability of Marine Invertebrates 

Exposed to an Underwater Explosion .............................................................................. 3.4-60

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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxiv 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.5-9: Alternative 1 – 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 – 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 .................... 3.5-34

Figure 3.5-11: A Marine Marker Observed in an Area Dominated by Coral Rubble on the 

Continental Slope ............................................................................................................. 3.5-40

Figure 3.5-12: An Unidentified, Non-Military Structure on Hardbottom ............................................. 3.5-40

Figure 3.5-13: A 76-millimeter Cartridge Casing on Softbottom and a Blackbelly Rosefish 

(Helicolenus dactylopterus) Using the Casing for Protection When Disturbed .............. 3.5-41

Figure 3.5-14: Military Expended Material Functioning as Habitat ...................................................... 3.5-42

Figure 3.5-15: Alternative 1 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials 

by Substrate Type for Testing and Training Compared to Total Habitat Within 

the Study Area ................................................................................................................. 3.5-46

Figure 3.5-16: Alternative 2 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials 

by Substrate Type for Training and Testing Compared to Total Vulnerable 

Habitat Within the Range Complexes of the Large Marine Ecosystems Within 

the Study Area ................................................................................................................. 3.5-52

Figure 3.5-17: Alternative 1 – Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives and 

Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within the Study Area ................ 3.5-60

Figure 3.5-18: Alternative 2 – Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives and 

Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within the Study Area ................ 3.5-62

Figure 3.6-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Atlantic Salmon in and Adjacent to the Study Area ................ 3.6-22

Figure 3.6-2: Proposed Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the 

Southern Portion the Study Area ..................................................................................... 3.6-24

Figure 3.6-3: Proposed Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the 

Northern Portion of the Study Area ................................................................................ 3.6-25

Figure 3.6-4: Critical Habitat Areas for Smalltooth Sawfish in and Adjacent to the Study Area .......... 3.6-31

Figure 3.6-5: Critical Habitat Areas for Gulf Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Study Area ................... 3.6-34

Figure 3.7-1: Composite Audiograms for Hearing Groups Likely to be Found in the 

Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 3.7-17

Figure 3.7-2: Designated Critical Habitat Areas for North Atlantic Right Whale in the Study 

Area .................................................................................................................................. 3.7-31

Figure 3.7-3: Designated Critical Habitat Areas for Florida Manatee in the Study Area ...................... 3.7-45

Figure 3.7-4: Two Hypothetical Threshold Shifts ................................................................................ 3.7-101 

Figure 3.7-5: Critical Ratios (in dB) Measured in Different Odontocetes Species (from 

Finneran & Branstetter, 2013) ....................................................................................... 3.7-107 

Figure 3.7-6: Navy Auditory Weighting Functions for All Species Groups .......................................... 3.7-142 

Figure 3.7-7: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources ........... 3.7-143 

Figure 3.7-8: Behavioral Response Function for Odontocetes ........................................................... 3.7-145 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxv

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-9: Behavioral Response Function for Pinnipeds ................................................................ 3.7-146 

Figure 3.7-10: Behavioral Response Function for Mysticetes and Manatees .................................... 3.7-146 

Figure 3.7-11: Behavioral Response Function for Beaked Whales ..................................................... 3.7-147 

Figure 3.7-12: Relative Likelihood of a Response Being Significant Based on the Duration 

and Severity of Behavioral Reactions ............................................................................ 3.7-148 

Figure 3.7-13: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-167 

Figure 3.7-14: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-169 

Figure 3.7-15: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-171 

Figure 3.7-16: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-173 

Figure 3.7-17: Blue Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-175 

Figure 3.7-18: Blue Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. .......... 3.7-177 

Figure 3.7-19: Blue Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-179 

Figure 3.7-20: Blue Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. .......... 3.7-181 

Figure 3.7-21: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-183 

Figure 3.7-22: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-185 

Figure 3.7-23: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-187 

Figure 3.7-24: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-189 

Figure 3.7-25: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-191 

Figure 3.7-26: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. ..................................................................... 3.7-193 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxvi 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-27: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-195 

Figure 3.7-28: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. ..................................................................... 3.7-197 

Figure 3.7-29: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-199 

Figure 3.7-30: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-201 

Figure 3.7-31: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-203 

Figure 3.7-32: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-205 

Figure 3.7-33: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-207 

Figure 3.7-34: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. ..................................................................... 3.7-209 

Figure 3.7-35: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. .................................................................... 3.7-211 

Figure 3.7-36: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. ..................................................................... 3.7-213 

Figure 3.7-37: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-215 

Figure 3.7-38: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. .......... 3.7-217 

Figure 3.7-39: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-219 

Figure 3.7-40: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. .......... 3.7-221 

Figure 3.7-41: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-226 

Figure 3.7-42: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. .......... 3.7-227 

Figure 3.7-43: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-229 

Figure 3.7-44: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. .......... 3.7-231 

Figure 3.7-45: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. ............................................... 3.7-233 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxvii 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-46: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. ............................................... 3.7-234 

Figure 3.7-47: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. ................................................ 3.7-236 

Figure 3.7-48: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. ................................................ 3.7-237 

Figure 3.7-49: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. ............................................... 3.7-239 

Figure 3.7-50: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. ............................................... 3.7-240 

Figure 3.7-51: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. ................................................ 3.7-242 

Figure 3.7-52: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. ................................................ 3.7-243 

Figure 3.7-53: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-245 

Figure 3.7-54: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-246 

Figure 3.7-55: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-247 

Figure 3.7-56: Northern Bottlenose Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-248 

Figure 3.7-57: Sowersby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-249 

Figure 3.7-58: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-250 

Figure 3.7-59: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-252 

Figure 3.7-60: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-253 

Figure 3.7-61: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-254 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxviii 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-62: Northern Bottlenose Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-255 

Figure 3.7-63: Sowersby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-256 

Figure 3.7-64: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-257 

Figure 3.7-65: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-259 

Figure 3.7-66: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-260 

Figure 3.7-67: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-261 

Figure 3.7-68: Northern Bottlenose Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-262 

Figure 3.7-69: Sowersby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-263 

Figure 3.7-70: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-264 

Figure 3.7-71: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-266 

Figure 3.7-72: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-267 

Figure 3.7-73: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-268 

Figure 3.7-74: Northern Bottlenose Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-269 

Figure 3.7-75: Sowersby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-270 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxix 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-76: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-271 

Figure 3.7-77: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-273 

Figure 3.7-78: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-275 

Figure 3.7-79: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-277 

Figure 3.7-80: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-279 

Figure 3.7-81: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-281 

Figure 3.7-82: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-283 

Figure 3.7-83: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-285 

Figure 3.7-84: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-287 

Figure 3.7-85: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. ............................................... 3.7-289 

Figure 3.7-86: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. ................................................ 3.7-291 

Figure 3.7-87: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. ............................................... 3.7-293 

Figure 3.7-88: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. ................................................ 3.7-295 

Figure 3.7-89: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-297 

Figure 3.7-90: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-299 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxx

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-91: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-301 

Figure 3.7-92: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-303 

Figure 3.7-93: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-305 

Figure 3.7-94: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-307 

Figure 3.7-95: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-309 

Figure 3.7-96: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-311 

Figure 3.7-97: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-313 

Figure 3.7-98: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-315 

Figure 3.7-99: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-317 

Figure 3.7-100: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-319 

Figure 3.7-101: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-321 

Figure 3.7-102: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. .......... 3.7-323 

Figure 3.7-103: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-325 

Figure 3.7-104: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. Footnote: No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-327 

Figure 3.7-105: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-329 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxxi

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-106: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-331 

Figure 3.7-107: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-333 

Figure 3.7-108: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-335 

Figure 3.7-109: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-337 

Figure 3.7-110: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-339 

Figure 3.7-111: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-341 

Figure 3.7-112: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-343 

Figure 3.7-113: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-345 

Figure 3.7-114: Short-finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-346 

Figure 3.7-115: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-348 

Figure 3.7-116: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-349 

Figure 3.7-117: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-351 

Figure 3.7-118: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-352 

Figure 3.7-119: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-354 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxxii 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-120: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-355 

Figure 3.7-121: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-357 

Figure 3.7-122: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-359 

Figure 3.7-123: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-361 

Figure 3.7-124: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-363 

Figure 3.7-125: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-365 

Figure 3.7-126: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-367 

Figure 3.7-127: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-369 

Figure 3.7-128: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-371 

Figure 3.7-129: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-373 

Figure 3.7-130: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-375 

Figure 3.7-131: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-377 

Figure 3.7-132: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-379 

Figure 3.7-133: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-381 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxxiii 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-134: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-383 

Figure 3.7-135: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-385 

Figure 3.7-136: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-387 

Figure 3.7-137: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-389 

Figure 3.7-138: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-391 

Figure 3.7-139: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-393 

Figure 3.7-140: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-395 

Figure 3.7-141: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-397 

Figure 3.7-142: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-399 

Figure 3.7-143: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-401 

Figure 3.7-144: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-403 

Figure 3.7-145: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-405 

Figure 3.7-146: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-407 

Figure 3.7-147: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-409 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxxiv 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-148: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-411 

Figure 3.7-149: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. ............................................... 3.7-413 

Figure 3.7-150: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. ................................................ 3.7-415 

Figure 3.7-151: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. ............................................... 3.7-417 

Figure 3.7-152: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. ................................................ 3.7-419 

Figure 3.7-153: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-422 

Figure 3.7-154: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-423 

Figure 3.7-155: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. ....................................................................3.7-424 

Figure 3.7-156: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-425 

Figure 3.7-157: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. ..................................................................... 3.7-427 

Figure 3.7-158: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. ..................................................................... 3.7-428 

Figure 3.7-159: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. .......... 3.7-429 

Figure 3.7-160: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. .......... 3.7-430 

Figure 3.7-161: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-432 

Figure 3.7-162: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-433 

Figure 3.7-163: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. .................................................................... 3.7-434 

Figure 3.7-164: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-435 

Figure 3.7-165: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. ..................................................................... 3.7-437 

Figure 3.7-166: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. ..................................................................... 3.7-438 

Figure 3.7-167: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. .......... 3.7-439 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxxv

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-168: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. .......... 3.7-440 

Figure 3.7-169: West Indian Manatee Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-443 

Figure 3.7-170: West Indian Manatee Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-445 

Figure 3.7-171: West Indian Manatee Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-447 

Figure 3.7-172: West Indian Manatee Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-448 

Figure 3.7-173: Temporary Threshold Shift and Permanent Threshold Shift Exposure 

Functions for Air Guns ................................................................................................... 3.7-451 

Figure 3.7-174: Estimated Annual Behavioral Responses from Air Gun Use. No TTS or PTS is 

estimated for any species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-454 

Figure 3.7-175: Estimated Annual Impacts (Assuming Two Events per Year) from Pile Driving 

and Extraction Associated with the Construction and Removal of the Elevated 

Causeway ....................................................................................................................... 3.7-459 

Figure 3.7-176: Navy Phase III Weighting Functions for All Species Groups. ..................................... 3.7-486 

Figure 3.7-177: Navy Phase III Behavioral, TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Explosives. ............. 3.7-487 

Figure 3.7-178: Estimated Maximum Impacts to Each Species Across All Seasons and Areas 

in Which the Large Ship Shock Trial Could Occur. This event could occur once 

over a 5-year period....................................................................................................... 3.7-505 

Figure 3.7-179: Estimated Maximum Impacts to Each Species Across All Seasons and Areas 

in Which Small Ship Shock Trials Could Occur. This event could occur up to 

three times over a 5-year period. .................................................................................. 3.7-506 

Figure 3.7-180: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

behavioral responses, PTS, or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................ 3.7-509 

Figure 3.7-181: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species. .......................................................................... 3.7-511 

Figure 3.7-182: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, 

PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ............................................ 3.7-515 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxxvi 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-183: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding 

full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on 

fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-517 

Figure 3.7-184: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No behavioral reactions, PTS, or 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ....................................................... 3.7-519 

Figure 3.7-185: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses or 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ....................................................... 3.7-521 

Figure 3.7-186: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No behavioral responses or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-523 

Figure 3.7-187: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No behavioral reactions or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-525 

Figure 3.7-188: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral 

responses or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................. 3.7-527 

Figure 3.7-189: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding 

full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on 

fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-528 

Figure 3.7-190: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No behavioral reactions 

or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.................................................... 3.7-530 

Figure 3.7-191: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, 

PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ............................................ 3.7-532 

Figure 3.7-192: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No behavioral responses or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-533 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxxvii 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-193: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No behavioral reactions or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-535 

Figure 3.7-194: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS 

or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.................................................... 3.7-537 

Figure 3.7-195: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species. .............................................................................................................. 3.7-538 

Figure 3.7-196: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species. .......................................................................... 3.7-542 

Figure 3.7-197: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................... 3.7-544 

Figure 3.7-198: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-546 

Figure 3.7-199: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species. .......................................................................... 3.7-548 

Figure 3.7-200: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species. .......................................................................... 3.7-549 

Figure 3.7-201: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................ 3.7-550 

Figure 3.7-202: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................ 3.7-551 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxxviii 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-203: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) 

is estimated for this species........................................................................................... 3.7-553 

Figure 3.7-204: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) 

is estimated for this species........................................................................................... 3.7-554 

Figure 3.7-205: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ............................................ 3.7-556 

Figure 3.7-206: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-557 

Figure 3.7-207: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-558 

Figure 3.7-208: Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ............................................ 3.7-559 

Figure 3.7-209: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-560 

Figure 3.7-210: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-562 

Figure 3.7-211: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-563 

Figure 3.7-212: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-564 

Figure 3.7-213: Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xxxix 

Table of Contents 

Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-565 

Figure 3.7-214: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-566 

Figure 3.7-215: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. ................... 3.7-568 

Figure 3.7-216: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. .................................................................... 3.7-570 

Figure 3.7-217: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). ................................. 3.7-572 

Figure 3.7-218: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ....................................................... 3.7-574 

Figure 3.7-219: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-576 

Figure 3.7-220: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species. .......................................................................... 3.7-578 

Figure 3.7-221: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. .................................... 3.7-580 

Figure 3.7-222: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. ........................................................................................... 3.7-582 

Figure 3.7-223: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). ................................................... 3.7-584 

Figure 3.7-224: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species. .......................................................................... 3.7-586 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xl

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-225: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding 

full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on 

fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. .................... 3.7-587 

Figure 3.7-226: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-589 

Figure 3.7-227: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding 

full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on 

fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ......... 3.7-591 

Figure 3.7-228: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding 

full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on 

fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-594 

Figure 3.7-229: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species. .......................................................................... 3.7-596 

Figure 3.7-230: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................ 3.7-597 

Figure 3.7-231: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ....................................................... 3.7-600 

Figure 3.7-232: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-601 

Figure 3.7-233: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). ................................. 3.7-603 

Figure 3.7-234: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ............................................ 3.7-605 

Figure 3.7-235: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xli 

Table of Contents 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ............................................ 3.7-606 

Figure 3.7-236: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-607 

Figure 3.7-237: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-608 

Figure 3.7-238: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species. .......................................................................... 3.7-610 

Figure 3.7-239: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species. .......................................................................... 3.7-611 

Figure 3.7-240: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-613 

Figure 3.7-241: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.7-614 

Figure 3.7-242: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species. .......................................................................... 3.7-616 

Figure 3.7-243: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding 

full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on 

fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. .................... 3.7-618 

Figure 3.7-244: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ............................................ 3.7-620 

Figure 3.7-245: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xlii 

Table of Contents 

based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................ 3.7-622 

Figure 3.7-246: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. ................... 3.7-624 

Figure 3.7-247: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. .................................................................... 3.7-625 

Figure 3.7-248: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). ................................. 3.7-627 

Figure 3.7-249: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) 

is estimated for this species........................................................................................... 3.7-629 

Figure 3.7-250: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding 

full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on 

fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. .................... 3.7-630 

Figure 3.7-251: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-632 

Figure 3.7-252: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. .................................................. 3.7-634 

Figure 3.7-253: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding 

full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on 

fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. .................... 3.7-635 

Figure 3.7-254: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-637 

Figure 3.7-255: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) 

is estimated for this species........................................................................................... 3.7-640 

Figure 3.7-256: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding 

full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on 

fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. .................... 3.7-641 

Figure 3.7-257: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.7-643 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xliii 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.7-258: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................... 3.7-646 

Figure 3.7-259: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. .............................. 3.7-647 

Figure 3.7-260: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. .............................. 3.7-648 

Figure 3.7-261: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................... 3.7-649 

Figure 3.7-262: Navy Vessel Strikes Reported by Year (2009–2017) .................................................. 3.7-663 

Figure 3.8-1: Dive Depth and Duration Summaries for Sea Turtle Species ............................................ 3.8-5 

Figure 3.8-2: Generalized Dive Profiles and Activities Described for Sea Turtles ................................... 3.8-6 

Figure 3.8-3: Composite Underwater Audiogram for Sea Turtles .......................................................... 3.8-7 

Figure 3.8-4: Critical Habitat Designated for the Green Sea Turtles in the Study Area ........................ 3.8-15

Figure 3.8-5: Critical Habitat Designation for the Hawksbill Sea Turtle within the Study Area............ 3.8-20

Figure 3.8-6: Critical Habitat Designation for the Loggerhead Turtle within the Study Area: 

Mid-Atlantic ..................................................................................................................... 3.8-26

Figure 3.8-7: Critical Habitat Designation for the Loggerhead Turtle within the Study Area: 

Southeast ......................................................................................................................... 3.8-27

Figure 3.8-8: Critical Habitat Designation for the Loggerhead Turtle within the Study Area: 

Gulf of Mexico .................................................................................................................. 3.8-28

Figure 3.8-9: Critical Habitat Designation for the Leatherback Sea Turtle within the Study 

Area .................................................................................................................................. 3.8-33

Figure 3.8-10: Critical Habitat Designation for the American Crocodile within the Study Area .......... 3.8-37

Figure 3.8-11 Auditory Weighting Function for Sea Turtles ................................................................. 3.8-47

Figure 3.8-12: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Sonar and Other Transducers.............................. 3.8-48

Figure 3.8-13: Kemp’s ridley sea turtle impacts estimated per year from sonar and other 

transducers used during testing under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. ...................................................................................................................... 3.8-52

Figure 3.8-14: Loggerhead sea turtle impacts estimated per year from sonar and other 

transducersused during testing under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. ...................................................................................................................... 3.8-53
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xliv 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.8-15: Leatherback sea turtle impacts estimated per year from sonar and other 

transducers used during testing under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. ...................................................................................................................... 3.8-54

Figure 3.8-16: Kemp’s ridley sea turtle impacts estimated per year from sonar and other 

transducers used during testing under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. ...................................................................................................................... 3.8-57

Figure 3.8-17: Loggerhead sea turtle impacts estimated per year from sonar and other 

transducers used during testing under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. ...................................................................................................................... 3.8-58

Figure 3.8-18: Leatherback sea turtle impacts estimated per year from sonar and other 

transducers used during testing under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. ...................................................................................................................... 3.8-59

Figure 3.8-19: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Impulsive Sounds ................................................. 3.8-61

Figure 3.8-20 Auditory Weighting Function for Sea Turtles ................................................................. 3.8-84

Figure 3.8-21 TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Impulsive Sounds .................................................. 3.8-85

Figure 3.8-22: Green sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that occur 

during training under Alternative 1. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species. ...................................................................................................................... 3.8-91

Figure 3.8-23: Kemp’s ridley sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that 

occur during training under Alternative 1. No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................... 3.8-92

Figure 3.8-24: Loggerhead sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that occur 

during training under Alternative 1. ................................................................................ 3.8-93

Figure 3.8-25: Leatherback sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that 

occur during training under Alternative 1. No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................... 3.8-94

Figure 3.8-26: Green sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that occur 

during testing under Alternative 1. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species. ...................................................................................................................... 3.8-97

Figure 3.8-27: Kemp’s ridley sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that 

occur during testing under Alternative 1. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species. ................................................................................................................ 3.8-98

Figure 3.8-28: Loggerhead sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that occur 

during testing under Alternative 1. ................................................................................. 3.8-99

Figure 3.8-29: Leatherback sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that 

occur during testing under Alternative 1. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species. .............................................................................................................. 3.8-100 

Figure 3.8-30: Estimated Impacts on Sea Turtles from a Small Ship Shock Trial ................................ 3.8-101 

Figure 3.8-31: Estimated Impacts on Sea Turtles from a Large Ship Shock Trial ................................ 3.8-102 

Figure 3.8-32: Green sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that occur 

during training under Alternative 2. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.8-105 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xlv 

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.8-33: Kemp’s ridley sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that 

occur during training under Alternative 2. No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. ............................................................................................. 3.8-106 

Figure 3.8-34: Loggerhead sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that occur 

during training under Alternative 2. .............................................................................. 3.8-107 

Figure 3.8-35: Leatherback sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that 

occur during training under Alternative 2. No behavioral impacts or injuries 

(non-auditory) are estimated for this species. .............................................................. 3.8-108 

Figure 3.8-36: Green sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that occur 

during testing under Alternative 2. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species. .................................................................................................................... 3.8-110 

Figure 3.8-37: Kemp’s ridley sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that 

occur during testing under Alternative 2. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species. .............................................................................................................. 3.8-111 

Figure 3.8-38: Loggerhead sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that occur 

during testing under Alternative 2. ............................................................................... 3.8-112 

Figure 3.8-39: Leatherback sea turtle impacts estimated per year from explosions that 

occur during testing under Alternative 2. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species. .............................................................................................................. 3.8-113 

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 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 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

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xlvi 

Table of Contents 

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 ................................................ 3.11-24

Figure 3.11-7: Annual Recreational Catch of All Species for the 18 Coastal States (2010–

2014) .............................................................................................................................. 3.11-27

Figure 3.11-8: Top Five Recreational Species Caught in the Atlantic States (2010–2014) ................. 3.11-27

Figure 3.11-9: Top Five Recreational Species Caught in the Gulf States (2010–2014) ....................... 3.11-28

Figure 3.11-10: Percent of Catch in Federal Waters for Top Five Atlantic Coast Recreational 

Species (Measured By Number of Fish Caught) in 2014 ................................................ 3.11-29

Figure 3.11-11: Percent of Catch in Federal Waters for Top Five Gulf Coast Recreational 

Species (Measured By Number of Fish Caught) in 2014 ................................................ 3.11-29

Figure 3.11-12: Danger Zones and Restricted Areas in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean....................... 3.11-38

Figure 3.11-13: Danger Zones and Restricted Areas in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean ................................ 3.11-39

Figure 3.11-14: Danger Zones and Restricted Areas in the Southeast Atlantic Ocean and 

Eastern Gulf of Mexico................................................................................................... 3.11-40

Figure 3.11-15: Danger Zones and Restricted Areas in the Western Gulf of Mexico ......................... 3.11-41

Figure 5.4-1: Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas off the Northeastern United States .......................... 5-49

Figure 5.4-2: Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas off the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern 

United States ...................................................................................................................... 5-50

Figure 5.4-3: Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas in the Gulf of Mexico ................................................ 5-51

Figure 5.4-4: Mitigation Areas and Habitats Considered off the Northeastern United States................ 5-53

Figure 5.4-5: Mitigation Areas and Habitats Considered off the Mid-Atlantic and 

Southeastern United States ................................................................................................ 5-65

Figure 5.4-6: Mitigation Areas and Habitats Considered in the Gulf of Mexico ...................................... 5-74

Figure 5.6-1: Summary of Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Study Area ............................. 5-92

Figure 6.1-1: Location of National System of Marine Protected Areas within the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic Portion of the Study Area ....................................................................... 6-33

Figure 6.1-2: Location of National System of Marine Protected Areas within the Southeast 

Atlantic and Caribbean Portion of the Study Area ............................................................. 6-34

Figure 6.1-3: Location of National System of Marine Protected Areas within the Gulf of 

Mexico Portion of the Study Area ...................................................................................... 6-35

Figure 6.1-4: Location of National Marine Sanctuaries within the Mid-Atlantic Portion of the 

Study Area ........................................................................................................................... 6-38

Figure 6.1-5: Location of National Marine Sanctuaries within the Gulf of Mexico Portion of 

the Study Area .................................................................................................................... 6-44

Figure 8.2-1: Stakeholder Scoping Notification Letter ............................................................................... 8-8 

Figure 8.2-2: Postcard Mailer for Scoping (front) .................................................................................... 8-13

Figure 8.2-3: Postcard Mailer for Scoping (back) ..................................................................................... 8-14

Figure 8.2-4: Newspaper Announcement of Scoping .............................................................................. 8-16

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xlvii 

Table of Contents 

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

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-42

Figure A.2-3: Tactical Air-Launched Decoy (Aerial Target) ...................................................................... A-42

Figure A.2-4: “Killer Tomato” Stationary Floating Target ...................................................................... A-129

Figure A.2-5: QST-35 Seaborne Powered Target (on Left) and High-Speed Maneuvering 

Surface Target (on Right) .................................................................................................. A-130

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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xlviii 

Table of Contents 

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

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 to be Implemented .................................................. ES-32

Table ES.7-2: Summary of Mitigation to be Implemented within Mitigation Areas ............................. ES-34

Table 2.3-1: Major ASW Training Exercises and Integrated/Coordinated Training ................................. 2-23

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities ................................................................................................ 2-24

Table 2.3-3: Naval Air Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities................................................ 2-29

Table 2.3-4: Naval Sea Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities............................................... 2-32

Table 2.3-5: Office of Naval Research Proposed Testing Activities ......................................................... 2-34

Table 2.3-6: Training Activities Typically Not Occurring in the Coastal Zone1......................................... 2-43

Table 2.3-7: Testing Activities Typically Not Occurring in the Coastal Zone1.......................................... 2-43

Table 2.3-8: Summary of Mitigation for Stressors and Geographic Locations ........................................ 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 ......................... 2-69

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 .............. 3.0-23

Table 3.0-2: Sonar and Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed .................................................. 3.0-36

Table 3.0-3: Training and Testing Air Gun Sources Quantitatively Analyzed in the Study Area ........... 3.0-43

Table 3.0-4: Sonar and Transducers Qualitatively Analyzed................................................................. 3.0-44

Table 3.0-5: Elevated Causeway System Pile Driving and Removal Underwater Sound Levels ........... 3.0-45

Table 3.0-6: Summary of Pile Driving and Removal Activities per 24-Hour Period .............................. 3.0-46

Table 3.0-7: Estimated Vessel Presence (Hours) in Study Area ............................................................ 3.0-46

Table 3.0-8: Representative Aircraft Sound Characteristics ................................................................. 3.0-51

Table 3.0-9: Sonic Boom Underwater Sound Levels Modeled for F/A-18 Hornet Supersonic 

Flight ................................................................................................................................ 3.0-53

Table 3.0-10: Examples of Weapons Noise ........................................................................................... 3.0-54

Table 3.0-11: Explosive Sources Quantitatively Analyzed that Could Be Used Underwater or 

at the Water Surface ........................................................................................................ 3.0-58

Table 3.0-12: Typical Air Explosive Munitions During Navy Activities .................................................. 3.0-59

Table 3.0-13: Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Electromagnetic Devices .......... 3.0-60
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

xlix 

Table of Contents 

Table 3.0-14: Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices .................................................................................................. 3.0-61

Table 3.0-15: Activities Including High-Energy Lasers .......................................................................... 3.0-64

Table 3.0-16: Representative Vessel Types, Lengths, and Speeds ....................................................... 3.0-65

Table 3.0-17: Number and Location of Activities Including Vessels ..................................................... 3.0-66

Table 3.0-18: Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including Vessels .......................... 3.0-67 

Table 3.0-19: Number of High Speed Vessel Hours for Small Crafts Associated with Training 

Activities in Inland Waters of the Study Area .................................................................. 3.0-68

Table 3.0-20: Representative Types, Sizes, and Speeds of In-Water Devices....................................... 3.0-69

Table 3.0-21: Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices ..................................... 3.0-69

Table 3.0-22: Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including In-Water 

Devices ............................................................................................................................. 3.0-70

Table 3.0-23: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Training Activities............................................................................................................. 3.0-71

Table 3.0-24: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Training Activities in Inland Waters ................................................................................. 3.0-72

Table 3.0-25: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Testing Activities .............................................................................................................. 3.0-73

Table 3.0-26: Number and Location of Explosives that May Result in Fragments Used During 

Training Activities............................................................................................................. 3.0-75

Table 3.0-27: Number and Location of Explosives that May Result in Fragments Used During 

Testing Activities .............................................................................................................. 3.0-77

Table 3.0-28: Number and Location of Targets Used or Expended During Training Activities ............ 3.0-79

Table 3.0-29: Number and Location of Targets Used or Expended During Training Activities 

in Inland Waters ............................................................................................................... 3.0-80

Table 3.0-30: Number and Location of Targets Used or Expended During Testing Activities .............. 3.0-80

Table 3.0-31: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Training Activities............................................................................................................. 3.0-82

Table 3.0-32: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Training Activities in Inland Waters ................................................................................. 3.0-86

Table 3.0-33: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Testing Activities .............................................................................................................. 3.0-86

Table 3.0-34: Number and Location of Activities Including Seafloor Devices ...................................... 3.0-90

Table 3.0-35: Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including Seafloor Devices ........... 3.0-91

Table 3.0-36: Number and Location of Activities Including Aircraft ..................................................... 3.0-92

Table 3.0-37: Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including Aircraft ......................... 3.0-92

Table 3.0-38: Number and Location of Wires and Cables Expended During Training Activities .......... 3.0-94

Table 3.0-39: Number and Location of Wires and Cables Expended During Testing Activities............ 3.0-95

Table 3.0-40: Activities Including Biodegradable Polymers During Testing Activities .......................... 3.0-98
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

l 

Table of Contents 

Table 3.0-41: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities That May 

Result in Fragments ......................................................................................................... 3.0-99

Table 3.0-42: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities in Inland 

Waters That May Result in Fragments .......................................................................... 3.0-100 

Table 3.0-43: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Testing Activities That May 

Result in Fragments ....................................................................................................... 3.0-101 

Table 3.1-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................. 3.1-3 

Table 3.1-2: De Minimis Thresholds for Conformity Determinations ..................................................... 3.1-6 

Table 3.1-3: Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas Adjacent to Study Area .................................... 3.1-16

Table 3.1-4: Pierside and Coastal Activity Locations and Their Area’s Attainment Status................... 3.1-17

Table 3.1-5: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within the 

AFTT Study Area, Alternative 1 ........................................................................................ 3.1-23

Table 3.1-6: Estimated Net Change 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 ........................................................................................ 3.1-26

Table 3.1-8: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within 3 NM 

of shore in the Jacksonville, Florida Area, Alternative 2.................................................. 3.1-27

Table 3.1-9: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions from All Study Area Training and Testing 

Activities ........................................................................................................................... 3.1-28

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 ................................................................................................................. 3.2-26

Table 3.2-5: Percent Marine Debris by Source in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study 

Area .................................................................................................................................. 3.2-38

Table 3.2-6: Water Solubility of Common Explosives and Explosive Degradation Products ................ 3.2-41

Table 3.2-7: Failure and Low-Order Detonation Rates of Military Munitions ...................................... 3.2-44

Table 3.2-8: Constituents in Munitions Other Than Explosives ............................................................ 3.2-51

Table 3.2-9: Concentrations of and Screening Levels for Selected Metals in Marine 

Sediments, Vieques, Puerto Rico ..................................................................................... 3.2-57

Table 3.2-10: Summary of Components of Marine Markers and Flares ............................................... 3.2-63

Table 3.2-11: Major Components of Chaff ........................................................................................... 3.2-64

Table 3.3-1: Major Groups of Vegetation in Study Area ....................................................................... 3.3-10

Table 3.3-2: Presences of Seagrass Species within the Study Area ...................................................... 3.3-15
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

li

Table of Contents 

Table 3.3-3: Presence of Mangrove Species in the Study Area ............................................................ 3.3-19

Table 3.4-1: Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed and Species of Concern 

Invertebrate Species in the Study Area ........................................................................... 3.4-13

Table 3.4-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Marine Invertebrates in the Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Area .................................................................................................... 3.4-28

Table 3.5-1: Habitat Types Within the Large Marine Ecosystems and Open Ocean of the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area .................................................................. 3.5-2 

Table 3.5-2: Percent Coverage of Abiotic Substrate Types in Large Marine Ecosystems and 

the Atlantic Basin/Abyssal Zone of the AFTT Study Area .................................................. 3.5-7 

Table 3.5-3: Number of Artificial Structures Documented in Large Marine Ecosystems of the 

AFTT Study Area ............................................................................................................... 3.5-17

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in 

the Study Area ................................................................................................................. 3.6-16

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 3.6-45

Table 3.6-3: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Sonar .................................................................... 3.6-77

Table 3.6-4: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift from Four Representative Sonar Bins .................. 3.6-78

Table 3.6-5: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Air Guns ..................................... 3.6-86

Table 3.6-6: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Air Guns ................................................................ 3.6-87

Table 3.6-7: Range to Effect for Fishes Exposed to 100 Air Gun Shots ................................................. 3.6-87

Table 3.6-8: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Impact Pile Driving ..................... 3.6-91

Table 3.6-9: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Impact Pile Driving ............................................... 3.6-92

Table 3.6-10: Impact Ranges for Transient or Pelagic Fishes from Impact Pile Driving for 35 

Strikes (1 minute) ............................................................................................................. 3.6-93

Table 3.6-11: Impact Ranges for Demersal Fishes from Impact Pile Driving for 3,150 strikes 

(1 Day) .............................................................................................................................. 3.6-93

Table 3.6-12: Range to Effect from Underwater Explosions for Fishes with a Swim Bladder ............ 3.6-109 

Table 3.6-13: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Explosives .............................. 3.6-114 

Table 3.6-14: Sound Exposure Criteria for Hearing Loss from Explosives .......................................... 3.6-115 

Table 3.6-15: Range to Effect for Fishes without a Swim Bladder from Explosives ........................... 3.6-115 

Table 3.6-16: Range to Effect for all Fishes with a Swim Bladder from Explosives ............................ 3.6-117 

Table 3.6-17: Ingestion Stressors Potential for Impact on Fishes Based on Location ........................ 3.6-159 

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 ............. 3.7-16

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 .................................................. 3.7-147 

Table 3.7-4: Range to Permanent Threshold Shift for Five Representative Sonar Systems ............... 3.7-152 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

lii

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 ............................................................. 3.7-152 

Table 3.7-6: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin MF1 over a Representative 

Range of Environments Within the Study Area ............................................................. 3.7-153 

Table 3.7-7: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin MF4 over a Representative 

Range of Environments Within the Study Area ............................................................. 3.7-153 

Table 3.7-8: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin MF5 over a Representative 

Range of Environments Within the Study Area ............................................................. 3.7-154 

Table 3.7-9: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar BinHF4 over a Representative 

Range of Environments Within the Study Area ............................................................. 3.7-154 

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 ................................. 3.7-155 

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 ......................... 3.7-156 

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 ......................... 3.7-157 

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 ......................... 3.7-158 

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 ................................. 3.7-159 

Table 3.7-15: Thresholds for Onset of TTS and PTS for Underwater Air Gun Sounds ........................ 3.7-450 

Table 3.7-16: Range to Effects from Air Guns for 10 pulses ............................................................... 3.7-452 

Table 3.7-17: Range to Effects from Air Guns for 100 pulses ............................................................. 3.7-453 

Table 3.7-18: Pile Driving Level B Thresholds Used in this Analysis to Predict Behavioral 

Responses from Marine Mammals ................................................................................ 3.7-457 

Table 3.7-19: Average Ranges to Effects from Impact Pile Driving .................................................... 3.7-458 

Table 3.7-20: Average Ranges to Effect from Vibratory Pile Extraction ............................................. 3.7-458 

Table 3.7-21: Criteria to Quantitatively Assess Non-Auditory Injury Due to 

Underwater Explosions .................................................................................................. 3.7-485 

Table 3.7-22: Criteria for Estimating Ranges to Potential Effect for Mitigation Purposes ................. 3.7-485 

Table 3.7-23: Navy Phase III Weighted Sound Exposure Thresholds for Underwater 

Explosive Sounds ............................................................................................................ 3.7-488 

Table 3.7-24: Ranges1 to 50 % Non-Auditory Injury Risk for All Marine Mammal Hearing 

Groups ............................................................................................................................ 3.7-491 

Table 3.7-25: Ranges1 to 50 % Mortality Risk for All Marine Mammal Hearing Groups as a 

Function of Animal Mass ............................................................................................... 3.7-492 

Table 3.7-26: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for HighFrequency Cetaceans ..................................................................................................... 3.7-493 

Table 3.7-27: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for High-Frequency 

Cetaceans ....................................................................................................................... 3.7-494 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

liii 

Table of Contents 

Table 3.7-28: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for LowFrequency Cetaceans ..................................................................................................... 3.7-495 

Table 3.7-29: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Low-Frequency 

Cetaceans ....................................................................................................................... 3.7-496 

Table 3.7-30: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for MidFrequency Cetaceans ..................................................................................................... 3.7-497 

Table 3.7-31: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Mid-Frequency 

Cetaceans ....................................................................................................................... 3.7-498 

Table 3.7-32: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for 

Phocids ........................................................................................................................... 3.7-499 

Table 3.7-33: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Phocids ........................ 3.7-500 

Table 3.7-34: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for 

Sirenians ......................................................................................................................... 3.7-501 

Table 3.7-35: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Sirenians ...................... 3.7-502 

Table 3.8-1: Current Regulatory Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed 

Reptiles in the Study Area ................................................................................................ 3.8-12

Table 3.8-2: PTS and TTS Peak Pressure Thresholds for Sea Turtles Exposed to Impulsive 

Sounds.............................................................................................................................. 3.8-61

Table 3.8-3: Ranges to Permanent Threshold Shift and Temporary Threshold Shift for Sea 

Turtles Exposed to 100 Air Gun Firings ............................................................................ 3.8-62

Table 3.8-4: Ranges to PTS and TTS for Sea Turtles Exposed to Impact Pile Driving ............................ 3.8-64

Table 3.8-5: Criteria to Quantitatively Assess Non-Auditory Injury due to Underwater 

Explosions ........................................................................................................................ 3.8-83

Table 3.8-6: PTS and TTS Peak Pressure Thresholds Derived for Sea Turtles Exposed to 

Impulsive Sounds ............................................................................................................. 3.8-85

Table 3.8-7: SEL Based Ranges to PTS and TTS for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives ......................... 3.8-86

Table 3.8-8: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to PTS and TTS for Sea Turtles Exposed to 

Explosives ......................................................................................................................... 3.8-88

Table 3.8-9: Ranges to Mortality for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives .............................................. 3.8-89

Table 3.8-10: Ranges to Injury for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives .................................................. 3.8-90

Table 3.9-1: Endangered Species Act-List Bird and Bat Species in the Study Area ................................. 3.9-6 

Table 3.9-2: Major 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 3.10-1: 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 ....................................................................................................................... 3.10-29
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

liv

Table of Contents 

Table 3.11-1: Value of Top Commercial Fish Caught off Coastal States in the Study Area, 

2014 ............................................................................................................................... 3.11-25

Table 3.11-2: Economic Benefit of Recreational Fishing Expenditures in the Northeast in 

2014 ............................................................................................................................... 3.11-30

Table 3.11-3: Economic Benefit of Recreational Fishing Expenditures in the Mid-Atlantic in 

2014 ............................................................................................................................... 3.11-30

Table 3.11-4: Economic Benefit of Recreational Fishing Expenditures in the Southeast 

Atlantic in 2014 .............................................................................................................. 3.11-31

Table 3.11-5: Economic Benefit of Recreational Fishing Expenditures in the Gulf of Mexico 

in 2014 ........................................................................................................................... 3.11-31

Table 3.11-6: Ocean Economy Data for the Tourism and Recreation Sector by State, 2013 ............. 3.11-35

Table 4.2-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ............................................................. 4-4 

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 .......................................................................................................................... 4-38

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, 

2010–20142......................................................................................................................... 4-39

Table 5.3-1: Procedural Mitigation for Environmental Awareness and Education ................................. 5-12

Table 5.3-2: Procedural Mitigation for Active Sonar ............................................................................... 5-13

Table 5.3-3: Procedural Mitigation for Air Guns ...................................................................................... 5-16

Table 5.3-4: Procedural Mitigation for Pile Driving ................................................................................. 5-17

Table 5.3-5: Procedural Mitigation for Weapons Firing Noise ................................................................ 5-19

Table 5.3-6: Procedural Mitigation for Aircraft Overflight Noise ............................................................ 5-20

Table 5.3-7: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Sonobuoys .................................................................. 5-21

Table 5.3-8: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Torpedoes .................................................................. 5-22

Table 5.3-9: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Medium-Caliber and Large-Caliber 

Projectiles ........................................................................................................................... 5-24

Table 5.3-10: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Missiles and Rockets ................................................ 5-26

Table 5.3-11: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Bombs....................................................................... 5-28

Table 5.3-12: Procedural Mitigation for Sinking Exercises ...................................................................... 5-29

Table 5.3-13: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization 

Activities .............................................................................................................................. 5-31

Table 5.3-14: Procedural Mitigation for Explosive Mine Neutralization Activities Involving 

Navy Divers ......................................................................................................................... 5-33

Table 5.3-15: Procedural Mitigation for Maritime Security Operations – Anti-Swimmer 

Grenades ............................................................................................................................. 5-36

Table 5.3-16: Procedural Mitigation for Line Charge Testing .................................................................. 5-37
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

lv

Table of Contents 

Table 5.3-17: Procedural Mitigation for Ship Shock Trials ....................................................................... 5-39

Table 5.3-18: Procedural Mitigation for Vessel Movement..................................................................... 5-41

Table 5.3-19: Procedural Mitigation for Towed In-Water Devices .......................................................... 5-42

Table 5.3-20: Procedural Mitigation for Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Non-Explosive 

Practice Munitions .............................................................................................................. 5-43

Table 5.3-21: Procedural Mitigation for Non-Explosive Missiles and Rockets ........................................ 5-44

Table 5.3-22: Procedural Mitigation for Non-Explosive Bombs and Mine Shapes .................................. 5-45

Table 5.4-1: Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources ............................................................................. 5-46

Table 5.4-2: Mitigation Areas off the Northeastern United States ......................................................... 5-52

Table 5.4-3: Mitigation Areas off the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States ............................. 5-64

Table 5.4-4: Mitigation Areas in the Gulf of Mexico ................................................................................ 5-73

Table 5.6-1: Summary of Procedural Mitigation to be Implemented...................................................... 5-89

Table 5.6-2: Summary of Mitigation to be Implemented within Mitigation Areas ................................. 5-90

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action ........................................ 6-2 

Table 6.1-2: National System of Marine Protected Areas within the Study Area ..................................... 6-9 

Table 8.2-1: Entities that Received the Scoping Notification Letter .......................................................... 8-1 

Table 8.2-2: Newspaper Announcements of Scoping Meetings .............................................................. 8-15

Table B-1: Stressors by Training Activity .................................................................................................... B-1 

Table B-2: Stressors by Testing Activity ..................................................................................................... B-7 

Table B-3: Stressors by Resource ............................................................................................................. B-13

Table E.1-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Year from Sonar Training Activities ...................... E-2 

Table E.2-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per 5-Year Period from Sonar Training 

Activities ................................................................................................................................ E-8 

Table E.3-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Year from Sonar Testing Activities ...................... E-13

Table E.4-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per 5-Year Period from Sonar Testing 

Activities .............................................................................................................................. E-19

Table E.6-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Year for Air Gun Activities ................................... E-24

Table E.7-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per 5-Year Period for Air Guns .................................. E-25

Table E.8-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Year from Pile Driving Activities ......................... E-26

Table E.9-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per 5-Year Period for Pile Driving Activities .............. E-27

Table E.11-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per year for Explosive Training Activities ................ E-28

Table E.12-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Year for Explosive Training Activities ................ E-39

Table E.13-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Year from Explosive Testing Activities 

(Excluding Ship Shock Trials) ............................................................................................... E-47

Table E.14-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per 5-Year Period for Explosive Testing 

Activities (Excluding Ship Shock Trials) ............................................................................... E-58

Table E.15-1: Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Small and Large Ship Shock Trials 

(Explosive Testing Activity) and per 5-Year Period ............................................................. E-66
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

lvi 

Table of Contents 

Table E.16-1: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Year from Sonar Training and Testing 

Activities .............................................................................................................................. E-69

Table E.17-1: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per 5-Year Period from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Training and Testing Activities ....................................................................... E-70

Table E.20-1: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Year from Explosive Training and Testing 

Activities .............................................................................................................................. E-71

Table E.21-1: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per 5-Year Period from Explosive Training and 

Testing Activities (Excluding Ship Shock Trials)................................................................... E-72

Table E.22-1: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Small and Large Ship Shock Trials 

(Explosive Testing Activity) and per 5-Year Period ............................................................. E-73

Table F-1: Categories and Footprints for Various Materials and Underwater 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-9 

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Inland Waters ................. F-11

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-13

Table F-5: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use 

DuringTraining Activities in Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................... F-15

Table F-6: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Training Activities in Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2 – Inland Waters .................... F-17

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-19

Table F-8: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Training Activities in Five Years Under with Differences between Alternatives 1 

and 2Inland Waters .......................................................................................................... F-21

Table F-9: Number of Recovered 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 ............................. F-23

Table F-11: Number and Impacts* of Recovered Bottom Placed Materials Proposed for Use 

During Training Activities in a Single Year Under Alternatives 1 and 2 - Inland 

Waters ................................................................................................................................. F-23

Table F-12: Number of Recovered Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities In 

Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................................................................ F-25

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 .................................. F-25

Table F-14: Number and Impacts* of Recovered Bottom Placed Materials Proposed for Use 

During Training Activities in Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2 - Inland 

Waters ................................................................................................................................. F-25
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

lvii 

Table of Contents 

Table F-15: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Testing Activities in a Single Year Under Alternatives 1 and 2 ........................................... F-29

Table F-16: 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-31

Table F-17: Number and Impacts* of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During 

Testing Activities in Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................................ F-33

Table F-18: Number of Recovered Materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in a 

Single Year Under Alternatives 1 and 2 .............................................................................. F-35

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-35

Table F-20: Number of Recovered Materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in 

Five Years Under Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................................................................ F-37

Table F-21: Number of Recovered Materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in 

Five Years Under Alternatives 1 & 2Inland Waters .......................................................... F-37

Table F-22: 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-39

Table F-23: Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1 and 2 in a Single Year ......................................................................... F-41

Table F-24: Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1 in a Single Year ................................................................................... F-42

Table F-25: Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 2 in a Single Year ................................................................................... F-43

Table F-26: Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Training Activities 

under Alternatives 1 and 2 Over Five Years ....................................................................... F-44

Table F-27: Potential Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities 

under Alternatives 1 and 2 Over Five Years ........................................................................ F-46

Table F-28: Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Training Activities on Each 

Substrate Type in a Single Year ........................................................................................... F-47

Table F-29: Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Testing Activities on Each 

Substrate Type in a Single Year ........................................................................................... F-47

Table F-30: Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Training Activities on Each 

Substrate Type over Five Years ........................................................................................... F-48

Table F-31: Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Testing Activities on Each 

Substrate Type over Five Years ........................................................................................... F-49

Table F-32: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Training Activities Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year ................................................................................... F-50

Table F-33: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Testing Activities Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year ................................................................................... F-51

Table F-34: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Training Activities Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 over Five Years ................................................................................... F-52
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

lviii 

Table of Contents 

Table F-35: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Testing Activities Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 over Five Years ................................................................................... F-53

Table F-36: Estimated Representative Marine Mammal Exposures from Direct Strike of a 

High Energy Laser by Area and Alternative in a Single Year ............................................... F-57

Table F-37: Estimated Representative Sea Turtle Exposures from Direct Strike of a High 

Energy Laser by Area and Alternative in a Single Year ....................................................... F-58

Table F-38: Estimated Representative Marine Mammal Exposures from Direct Strike of 

Military Expended Materials by Area and Alternative in a Single Year .............................. F-58

Table F-39: Estimated Representative Sea Turtle Exposures from Direct Strike of Military 

Expended Materials by Area and Alternative in a Single Year ............................................ F-59
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

A-ii

Abbreviations and Acronyms 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

i 

Table of Contents

Draft 

 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 of and Need for Proposed Military Readiness Training and Testing 

Activities ...................................................................................................................1-6

1.4.1 Why the Navy Trains ............................................................................................. 1-6

1.4.2 Optimized Fleet Response Plan ............................................................................. 1-8

1.4.2.1 Maintenance Phase ............................................................................... 1-9

1.4.2.2 Basic Phase............................................................................................. 1-9

1.4.2.3 Advanced Phase ................................................................................... 1-10

1.4.2.4 Integrated Phase .................................................................................. 1-10

1.4.2.5 Sustainment Phase .............................................................................. 1-11

1.4.3 Why the Navy Tests ............................................................................................. 1-11

1.4.3.1 Types of Testing ................................................................................... 1-12

1.4.3.2 Methods of Testing .............................................................................. 1-13

1.5 Overview and Strategic Importance of Existing Range Complexes and 

Testing Ranges ......................................................................................................... 1-14

1.6 The Environmental Planning Process ........................................................................ 1-15

1.6.1 National Environmental Policy Act Requirements ............................................... 1-15

1.6.2 Executive Order 12114 ......................................................................................... 1-15

1.6.3 Other Environmental Requirements Considered ................................................ 1-16

1.6.3.1 Federal Statutes ................................................................................... 1-16

1.6.3.2 Executive Orders .................................................................................. 1-19

1.7 Scope and Content ................................................................................................... 1-20

1.8 Organization of this Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................................. 1-20

List of Figures 

Figure 1.2-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area..................................................................... 1-3

Figure 1.4-1: Optimized Fleet Response Plan ............................................................................................ 1-9

Figure 1.6-1: National Environmental Policy Act Process ........................................................................ 1-15
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables 

This section does not contain tables. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-1 

1.0 Purpose and Need

A range complex is a set of adjacent areas of 

sea space, undersea space, and overlying 

airspace delineated for military training and 

testing activities. A test range is airspace or 

water surface areas where the Navy conducts a 

concentrated amount of testing activities. 

Divert airfields are airfields on land that are 

available for emergency use by aircraft 

operating at sea. Aircraft training activities at 

sea are typically conducted within 150 nautical 

miles of a divert airfield.

1 PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) proposes to conduct military readiness training 

activities 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. 

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 inland 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. 

Major conflicts, terrorism, lawlessness, 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 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 are areas shared with civilian and commercial vessels and aircraft; 

these are not areas over which the Navy has exclusive jurisdiction. Training and testing activities, 

collectively referred to as military readiness activities, that prepare the Navy to fulfill its mission to 

protect and defend the United States and its allies have the potential to impact the environment. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-2 

1.0 Purpose and Need

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 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 a policy, known as 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-3 

1.0 Purpose and Need

 Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; VACAPES: Virginia Capes. 

Figure 1.2-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-4 

1.0 Purpose and Need

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 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 was analyzed in Phase II. The Navy has reevaluated 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; and additionally 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 inland 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-6 

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.”

1.4 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED MILITARY READINESS TRAINING 

AND TESTING ACTIVITIES

The purpose of 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 

following sections provide an overview of the need for military readiness activities. 

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—from 

large-scale conflict to maritime security to humanitarian 

assistance/disaster relief—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., 

unmanned aerial vehicles) 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-7 

1.0 Purpose and Need

larger exercise training events, which culminate in advanced, integrated training composed of large 

groups of personnel and, in some instances, joint service 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 real combat activities 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 minutes to 

an hour would require traveling in a straight line over a distance of at least 10–20 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 10–50 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 20–50 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 

and do not interfere 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 

tipped strongly in favor of the latter, and the Navy’s surface force evolved accordingly. The Navy’s 

 

2

 Large group exercises may include carrier strike groups and expeditionary strike groups. Joint exercises may be with other U.S.

services and other nations.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-8 

1.0 Purpose and Need

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 us 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. This 

allows them to deploy in dispersed formations in order to control large areas of the sea (e.g., hundreds 

of thousands of square miles) from which the Navy can operate seamlessly in time of conflict. 

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, 2014b). 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 

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, 

 

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-9 

1.0 Purpose and Need

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 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. 

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 

Figure 1.4-1: Optimized Fleet Response Plan
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-10

1.0 Purpose and Need

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 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 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. There are some forces, such as independent 

deployers, that do not require an integrated phase and 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, multi-dimensional, 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 landbased targets). 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-11

1.0 Purpose and Need

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 

 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-12

1.0 Purpose and Need

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, 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-13

1.0 Purpose and Need

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, shipyards, or 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, 

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 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-14

1.0 Purpose and Need

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 need to spend unnecessary time away from their families during the training cycle. Additionally, the 

Navy is required to track and, where possible, limit the amount of time Sailors and Marines spend 

deployed from home (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2014a). 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 

 Key West Range Complex 

 Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 

 Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-15

1.0 Purpose and Need

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 through written comments. 

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. 

The Final EIS addresses all public comments received on the Draft EIS. 

Responses to public comments may include correction of data, clarifications 

of and modifications to analytical approaches, and inclusion of new or 

additional data and scientific information or analyses or 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). 

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 

Figure 1.6-1: National 

Environmental Policy 

Act Process

Notice of Intent 

Published in 

Federal Register

Scoping

Public Comments 

Received and 

Incorporated

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-16

1.0 Purpose and Need

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 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. Noncriteria 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. 

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 part 

1700) govern discharges incidental to the normal operation of Navy ships at sea. 

1.6.3.1.3 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 Code of Federal 

Regulations part 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. An incidental take statement is also included in every biological opinion where 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-17

1.0 Purpose and Need

take is anticipated. This incidental take statement allows the proposed action to occur without being 

subject to penalties under the ESA. 

1.6.3.1.4 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 MagnusonStevens 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. 

1.6.3.1.5 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 

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). The regulation 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 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-18

1.0 Purpose and Need

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)). 

1.6.3.1.6 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 

readiness rule authorizing members of the Armed Forces to incidentally take migratory birds during 

military readiness activities. 

1.6.3.1.7 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. 

1.6.3.1.8 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-19

1.0 Purpose and Need

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 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade

Executive Order 13693 was issued in March 2015 and revoked Executive Order 13423 and Executive 

Order 13514. The goal of Executive Order 13693 is to maintain federal leadership in sustainability and 

greenhouse gas emission reductions. Specifically, Executive Order 13693 looks to cut the federal 

government’s greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent over the next decade, relative to 2008 levels, by 

increasing efficiency and improving environmental performance. 

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 

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 13547, Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great 

Lakes

Executive Order 13547 (75 Federal Register 43023) was issued in 2010. It is a comprehensive national 

policy for the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. This order adopts the 

recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and directs executive agencies to 

implement the recommendations under the guidance of a National Ocean Council. This order 

establishes a national policy to ensure the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources; enhance the sustainability of ocean and 

coastal economies; preserve our maritime heritage; support sustainable uses and access; provide for 

adaptive management to enhance our understanding of and capacity to respond to climate change and 

ocean acidification; and coordinate with our national security and foreign policy interests. 

Key to implementing this executive order is the establishment of Regional Planning Bodies and 

development of Regional Marine Plans. Within the AFTT Study Area, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Planning Bodies developed Plans that were certified by the National Ocean Council in 

December 2016. In those Plans, the Department of Defense committed to using the Plans and Regional 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-20

1.0 Purpose and Need

Data Portals to inform pertinent environmental programs, initiatives, and planning documents. The 

Regional Ocean Plans and Data Portals were used as a resource throughout the development of this EIS. 

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 NMFS is a 

cooperating agency because of its expertise and regulatory authority over certain marine resources. 

Additionally, this EIS/OEIS may be adopted by NMFS to address NEPA requirements associated with the 

MMPA rule-making process and to support the issuance of the Letters of Authorization to the Navy. 

In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

part 1505.2, the Navy will issue a Record of Decision that provides the rationale for choosing one of the 

alternatives. The NMFS plans to adopt this EIS/OEIS and issue a separate Record of Decision prior to 

issuance of any regulations or letters of authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. 

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. 

 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. 

 Appendices provide technical information that supports the EIS/OEIS analyses and its 

conclusions.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-21

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. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014a). Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 3000.13D, Navy Personnel 

Tempo and Operating Tempo Program. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014b). Optimized Fleet Response Plan. 

COMUSFLTFORCOM/COMPACFLTINST 3000.15A N7. 8 Dec 2014. Norfolk. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

1-22

1.0 References

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

i 

Table of Contents

Draft 

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................................................................................... 2-6

2.1.5.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-11

2.1.5.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-11

2.1.6 Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range ........................................................ 2-11

2.1.6.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-11

2.1.6.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-11

2.1.7 Key West Range Complex .................................................................................... 2-12

2.1.7.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-12

2.1.7.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-12

2.1.8 Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range .................. 2-12

2.1.8.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-12

2.1.8.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-12

2.1.9 Gulf of Mexico Range Complex ............................................................................ 2-12

2.1.9.1 Airspace ............................................................................................... 2-12

2.1.9.2 Sea and Undersea Space ...................................................................... 2-12

2.1.10 Inshore locations .................................................................................................. 2-13

2.1.10.1 Pierside Locations ................................................................................ 2-13
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

ii 

Table of Contents

2.1.10.2 Bays, Harbors, and Inland Waterways ................................................. 2-13

2.1.10.3 Civilian Ports ........................................................................................ 2-13

2.2 Primary Mission Areas ............................................................................................. 2-19

2.2.1 Air Warfare ........................................................................................................... 2-19

2.2.2 Amphibious Warfare ............................................................................................ 2-19

2.2.3 Anti-Submarine Warfare ...................................................................................... 2-20

2.2.4 Electronic Warfare ............................................................................................... 2-20

2.2.5 Expeditionary Warfare ......................................................................................... 2-21

2.2.6 Mine Warfare ....................................................................................................... 2-21

2.2.7 Surface Warfare ................................................................................................... 2-21

2.3 Proposed Activities .................................................................................................. 2-22

2.3.1 Proposed Training Activities ................................................................................ 2-22

2.3.2 Proposed Testing Activities .................................................................................. 2-28

2.3.2.1 Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities ................................... 2-28

2.3.2.2 Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities.................................. 2-31

2.3.2.3 Office of Naval Research Testing Activities ......................................... 2-34

2.3.3 Standard Operating Procedures .......................................................................... 2-34

2.3.3.1 Sea Space and Airspace Deconfliction ................................................. 2-35

2.3.3.2 Vessel Safety ........................................................................................ 2-36

2.3.3.3 Aircraft Safety ...................................................................................... 2-36

2.3.3.4 High-Powered Laser Safety .................................................................. 2-37

2.3.3.5 Weapons Firing Safety ......................................................................... 2-37

2.3.3.6 Target Deployment Safety ................................................................... 2-38

2.3.3.7 Swimmer Defense Activity Safety ........................................................ 2-38

2.3.3.8 Pierside Testing Safety ......................................................................... 2-38

2.3.3.9 Underwater Detonation Safety ........................................................... 2-38

2.3.3.10 Sonic Booms ......................................................................................... 2-39

2.3.3.11 Unmanned Aerial, Surface, and Subsurface Vehicle Safety ................ 2-39

2.3.3.12 Towed In-Water Device Safety ............................................................ 2-39

2.3.3.13 Ship Shock Trial Safety ......................................................................... 2-39

2.3.3.14 Pile Driving Safety ................................................................................ 2-40

2.3.3.15 Sinking Exercise Safety ......................................................................... 2-40

2.3.3.16 Coastal Zone ........................................................................................ 2-40

2.3.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 2-44

2.4 Action Alternative Development .............................................................................. 2-45

2.4.1 Training ................................................................................................................ 2-46

2.4.2 Testing .................................................................................................................. 2-49

2.4.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration .......................................... 2-50
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

iii 

Table of Contents

2.4.3.1 Alternative Training and Testing Locations ......................................... 2-50

2.4.3.2 Simulated Training and Testing Only ................................................... 2-51

2.4.3.3 Training and Testing Without the Use of Active Sonar ....................... 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 .................................................................................................. 2-60

2.6 Proposed Training and Testing Activities for Both Alternatives .................................. 2-61

2.6.1 Proposed Training Activities ................................................................................ 2-61

2.6.2 Proposed Testing Activities .................................................................................. 2-69

List of Figures 

Figure 2.1-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area..................................................................... 2-3

Figure 2.1-2: Study Area, Mid-Atlantic Region .......................................................................................... 2-7

Figure 2.1-3: Study Area, Southeast Region .............................................................................................. 2-9

Figure 2.1-4: Study Area, Gulf of Mexico Region ..................................................................................... 2-15

Figure 2.1-5: Study Area, Inshore Locations ............................................................................................ 2-17

Figure 2.3-1: Ship Shock Trial and Sinking Exercise Areas with Standard Operating 

Procedures .......................................................................................................................... 2-41

Figure 2.4-1: Geographic Areas Where Navy Proposes to Conduct Mitigation Measures ...................... 2-47

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 .................................................................... 2-59
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

iv 

Table of Contents

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 ASW Training Exercises and Integrated/Coordinated Training ................................. 2-23

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities ................................................................................................ 2-24

Table 2.3-3: Naval Air Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities ................................................ 2-29

Table 2.3-4: Naval Sea Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities............................................... 2-32

Table 2.3-5: Office of Naval Research Proposed Testing Activities ......................................................... 2-34

Table 2.3-6: Training Activities Typically Not Occurring in the Coastal Zone1......................................... 2-43

Table 2.3-7: Testing Activities Typically Not Occurring in the Coastal Zone1.......................................... 2-43

Table 2.3-8: Summary of Mitigation for Stressors and Geographic Locations ........................................ 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 ......................... 2-69

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

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 military readiness training 

activities, 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. 

These military readiness activities include the use of active sonar and explosives within existing range 

complexes and testing ranges and additional 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 inland 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’ 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, and inland 

waterways, and civilian ports where training and testing occurs (Section 2.1.10, Inshore Locations). The 

Study Area generally follows the Commander Task Force 80 area of operations, covering approximately 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

2-2 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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 of and Need for Proposed 

Military Readiness Training and Testing Activities).

A Navy range complex consists of geographic areas that encompasses 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 operating areas 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 nonparticipating 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 in-water 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, inland waterways, and pierside locations, which are within the 

boundaries of the range complexes, but are detailed separately in Section 2.1.10 (Inshore Locations). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-3 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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

Figure 2.1-1: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-4 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

are provided for 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 surface to ceilings of 18,000 ft. 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 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. 

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). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-7 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; VACAPES: Virginia Capes; NSB: Naval Submarine Base 

Figure 2.1-2: Study Area, Mid-Atlantic Region 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-8 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-9 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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

Figure 2.1-3: Study Area, Southeast Region 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-10 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-11 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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. 

 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-12 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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 

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: 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-13 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

 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 2.1-5). 

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 Inland Waterways 

Inland 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 

 Gulf of Mexico Range Complex/Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division: St. Andrew 

Bay 

2.1.10.3 Civilian Ports 

Civilian ports included for civilian port defense training events are listed in Section A.2.7.3 of Appendix A 

(Navy Activity Descriptions) and include: 

 Boston, Massachusetts

 Earle, New Jersey

 Kings Bay, Georgia

 Mayport, Florida

 Savannah, Georgia
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-14 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

 Delaware Bay, Delaware

 Hampton Roads, Virginia

 Morehead City, North Carolina

 Wilmington, North Carolina

 Port Canaveral, Florida

 Tampa, Florida

 Beaumont, Texas

 Corpus Christi, Texas
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-15 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area 

Figure 2.1-4: Study Area, Gulf of Mexico Region 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-16 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-17 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area 

Figure 2.1-5: Study Area, Inshore Locations 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-18 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-19 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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. 

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. Largescale 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-20 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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 largescale, 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 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-21 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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, diver propulsion device training and testing, and parachute insertion. 

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 sidescan 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 

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, subsurface, and air targets while also defending 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-22 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-23 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Table 2.3-1 provides the differences between major ASW 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 ASW 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-24 

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 Exercises 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 helicopters 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities (continued) 

2-25 

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-winged 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-winged aircraft and helicopter aircrews deploy flares to disrupt 

threat infrared missile guidance systems.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities (continued) 

2-26 

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 antiswimmer 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, which 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-winged 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 Helicopter and tilt-rotor aircrews use small-caliber guns to engage surface 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities (continued) 

2-27 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Activity Description

Air-to-Surface Small-Caliber targets.

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 largecaliber 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. Supporting 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.3-2: Proposed Training Activities (continued) 

2-28 

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-29 

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.

Electronic Systems Evaluation Test that evaluates the effectiveness of electronic systems to control, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

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.

High-Energy Laser Weapons Test High-energy laser weapons tests evaluate the specifications, integration, 

and performance of an aircraft-mounted, approximately 25 kilowatt, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.3-3: Naval Air Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities (continued) 

2-31 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Activity Description

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 missions 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-32 

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. When performed on a testing range, these 

torpedoes may be launched from a range craft or fixed structures and 

may use artificial targets.

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 Crews defend against targets with large-caliber guns.

Gun Testing – Medium-Caliber Airborne and surface crews defend against targets with medium-caliber 

guns.

Gun Testing – Small-Caliber Airborne and 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

surveillance and communications range of unmanned underwater 

vehicles, manned and unmanned surface vehicles, and submarines.

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 nonexplosive 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 atsea 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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.3-4: Naval Sea Systems Command’s Proposed Testing Activities (continued) 

2-34 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Activity Name Activity Description

Chemical and Biological Simulant 

Testing Chemical-biological agent simulants are deployed against surface ships.

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 radiofrequencies 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 a real-word situation and to their optimum capabilities. 

While standard operating procedures are designed for the safety of personnel and equipment and to 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-35 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

ensure the success of training and testing activities, their implementation often yields additional 

benefits on environmental, socioeconomic, public health and safety, and cultural resources. 

Navy standard operating procedures have been developed and refined over years of experience and are 

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 standard operating procedures are essential to safety and mission success, the Navy considers 

them to be part of the proposed activities under each alternative and has included them in the 

Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences) environmental analysis for each 

resource. Standard operating procedures that are recognized as providing a potential secondary benefit 

on environmental, socioeconomic, public health and safety, or cultural resources during training and 

testing activities are discussed in the sections below. Standard operating procedures (which are 

implemented regardless of their secondary benefits) are different from mitigation measures (which are 

designed entirely for the purpose of avoiding potential impacts of the Proposed Action). Information on 

mitigation measures is provided in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), and activities associated with these mitigation 

measures are provided in Section 2.3.4 (Mitigation Measures). 

2.3.3.1 Sea Space and Airspace Deconfliction 

The Navy schedules training and testing activities to minimize sea space and airspace conflicts within 

ranges and throughout the Study Area and to avoid interaction with established commercial air traffic 

routes and commercial vessel shipping lanes. Navy events may change mid-stream based on evaluators’ 

assessments of performance and other conditions (such as weather or mechanical issues), which often 

precludes the use of a permission scheme for access to sea space. The Navy deconflicts the sea space 

and airspace used during training and testing activities to allow for the necessary separation of multiple 

Navy units to ensure safety for civilian personnel, commercial aircraft, commercial vessels, Sailors, and 

Navy assets (and to prevent interference with equipment sensors). 

The standard operating procedures for sea space and airspace deconfliction could result in a secondary 

benefit to socioeconomic resources and public health and safety through a reduction in the potential for 

interactions with civilians and commercial vessels and aircraft. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-36 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.3.3.2 Vessel Safety 

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). Watch personnel undertake extensive training in 

accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. Training includes onthe-job instruction and a formal Personal Qualification Standard program (or equivalent program for 

supporting contractors or civilians), to certify that they have demonstrated all necessary skills. Skills 

include detection and reporting of floating or partially submerged objects. Watch personnel include 

officers, enlisted men and women, and civilians operating in similar capacities. Their duties as 

watchstanders may be performed in conjunction with other job responsibilities, such as navigating the 

ship or supervising other personnel. While on watch, personnel employ visual search techniques, 

including the use of binoculars and scanning techniques in accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout 

Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. After sunset and prior to sunrise, watch personnel employ 

night visual search techniques, which could include the use of night vision devices. 

A primary duty of watch personnel is to ensure safety of the ship, and this includes the requirement to 

detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in the water that may be indicative of a threat to 

the ship and its crew, such as debris, a periscope, surfaced submarine, or surface disturbance. Per safety 

requirements, watch personnel also report any marine mammals sighted that have the potential to be in 

the direct path of the ship as a standard collision avoidance procedure. Because watch personnel are 

primarily posted for safety of navigation, range clearance, and man-overboard precautions, they 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. When moored or at anchor, watch 

personnel may maintain security and safety of the ship by scanning the water for any indications of a 

threat (as described above). 

Navy vessels operate in accordance with the navigation rules established by the U.S. Coast Guard. All 

vessels operating on the water are required to follow the International Navigation Rules (Commandant 

Instruction M16672.2D). Navigation rules are formalized in the Convention on the International 

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972. Applicable navigation requirements include, but are 

not limited to, Rule 5 (Lookouts) and Rule 6 (Safe Speed). These rules require that vessels at all times 

proceed at a safe speed so that proper and effective action can be taken to avoid collision and so they 

can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. For more 

information about general vessel operating speeds, see Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water 

Devices). 

The standard operating procedures for vessel safety could result in a secondary benefit to public health 

and safety and marine mammals through a reduction in the potential for vessel strike. 

2.3.3.3 Aircraft Safety 

Pilots of Navy aircraft make every attempt to avoid large flocks of birds to reduce the safety risk involved 

with a potential bird strike. Since 2011, the Navy has required that all Navy flying units report all bird 

strikes through the Web-Enabled Safety System Aviation Mishap and Hazard Reporting System. 

The standard operating procedures for aircraft safety could result in a secondary benefit to birds 

through a reduction in the potential for aircraft strike. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-37 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.3.3.4 High-Powered 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-powered laser devices in 

OPAREAs in accordance with authorized standard operating procedures. Prior to commencing activities 

involving lasers, the operator ensures that the area is clear of unauthorized persons in the laser impact 

area by performing a search of the area. Ranges where lasers are used are required to have a Laser 

Range Safety Certification Report that is updated every 3 years. 

The standard operating procedures for laser safety could result in a secondary benefit to public health 

and safety through a reduction in the potential for interaction with lasers. 

2.3.3.5 Weapons Firing Safety 

A Notice to Mariners is usually issued in advance of gunnery activities, the exception being for smallcaliber crew-served weapons training when the immediate area around the ship is cleared visually. A 

notice is also issued in advance of explosive bombing activities when they are conducted in an area that 

does not already have a standing Notice to Mariners. More information on Notices to Mariners is found 

in Section 3.12.2.1.1 (Sea Space). 

Most weapons firing activities that involve the use of explosive ordnance 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 will 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 is endangering any object other than the designated 

target. 

Pilots of Navy aircraft are not authorized to expend ordnance, fire missiles, or drop other airborne 

devices through extensive cloud cover where visual clearance of the air and surface area is not possible. 

The two exceptions to this requirement are: (1) when operating in the open ocean, clearance of the air 

and surface 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. 

During activities that involve recoverable targets (e.g., aerial drones), the Navy recovers the target and 

any associated 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 real world situations. 

The standard operating procedures for weapons firing safety could result in a secondary benefit to 

public health and safety through a reduction in the potential for interaction with weapons firing 

activities and expended materials. The standard operating procedure for conducting activities in daylight 

hours and recovering targets and parachutes could result in a secondary benefit to biological resources 

through a reduction in the potential for impacts from explosives and military expended materials (by 

increasing the effectiveness of visual observations for mitigation) and physical disturbance and strike 

stressors. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-38 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.3.3.6 Target Deployment Safety 

The deployment 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. Firing 

exercises involving the integrated maritime portable acoustic scoring and simulation system are typically 

conducted in daylight hours in Beaufort sea state number 4 conditions or better to ensure safe 

operating conditions during buoy deployment and recovery. 

The standard operating procedures for target deployment safety could result in a secondary benefit to 

public health and safety, and to 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 the deployed targets. 

2.3.3.7 Swimmer Defense Activity Safety 

A Notice to Mariners is issued in advance of all swimmer defense activities. A daily in situ calibration of 

the 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 personnel 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 divers and boats, swimmers, snorkelers, 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. 

The standard operating procedures for swimmer defense safety could result in a secondary benefit to 

public health and safety and socioeconomic resources 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 underwater explosions. Safety precautions for 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 underwater energy to protect Navy divers. If unauthorized personnel were detected within 

the exercise area, the activity would be temporarily halted until the area was again cleared and secured. 

The standard operating procedures in place for sonar use, electromagnetic energy, and underwater 

explosions around diving activities could result in secondary benefits to public safety by reducing the 

potential for pierside testing to impact commercial or civilian divers. 

2.3.3.9 Underwater Detonation Safety 

Underwater detonation training takes place in specially designated areas, and Notice to Mariners are 

issued when the events are scheduled. These areas are not near popular dive sights; however, if divers 

are present, the training or testing activity would be postponed or cancelled. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-39 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

The standard operating procedures for underwater detonation safety could result in a secondary benefit 

to public health and safety, cultural resources, protected species, and socioeconomic resources through 

a reduction in the potential for interaction with underwater detonation activities. 

2.3.3.10 Sonic Booms 

As a general policy, sonic booms shall not be intentionally generated below 30,000 ft. of altitude unless 

over water and more than 30 mi. from inhabited land areas or islands. Deviations from this policy may 

be authorized only under one of the following conditions: 

 tactical missions 

 phases of formal training syllabus flights 

 research, test, and operational suitability test flights 

The standard operating procedures for sonic booms could result in a secondary benefit to public health 

and safety through a reduction in the potential for exposure to sonic booms. 

2.3.3.11 Unmanned Aerial, Surface, and Subsurface Vehicle Safety 

For activities involving unmanned aerial, surface, and subsurface vehicles, the Navy evaluates the need 

to publish a Notice to Airmen or Mariners based on the scale, location, and timing of the activity. 

Notices to Mariners or Airmen are issued, when necessary, to inform the public of training and testing 

activities so that they may stay clear of these areas and safety will be ensured. 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. 

The standard operating procedures for unmanned aerial, surface, and subsurface vehicle safety could 

result in a secondary benefit to public health and safety through a reduction in the potential for 

interaction with these platforms. 

2.3.3.12 Towed In-Water Device Safety 

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 marine mammals and vegetation through a reduction in the potential for physical disturbance and 

strike of a towed in-water device. 

2.3.3.13 Ship Shock Trial Safety 

The Navy may conduct ship shock trials in three distinct areas within the Study Area (Figure 2.3-1). 

Notices to Mariners and Airmen are issued in advance of all ship shock trial activities to alert the public 

to stay clear of the area. 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 of 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. If a non-participating vessel or aircraft is detected 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-40 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

within a 10-NM radius of ship shock trial activities, the 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. Ship shock trial testing is immediately stopped when a non-participating 

vessel or aircraft enters or is detected within the 5-NM 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 would be 

made. If detonation fails, the explosive would be recovered and disarmed. If the explosive cannot be 

detonated or disarmed, to safeguard human life, the explosive is disposed at sea in accordance with 

established Ammunition and Explosives Safety Afloat requirements. The location of any disposal is 

recorded. 

The standard operating procedures for ship shock trial safety could result in a secondary benefit to 

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, an initial set of 

strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy are performed before it can be operated at full 

power and speed. The energy reduction of an individual hammer cannot be quantified because they 

vary by individual drivers. Also, the number of strikes will vary at reduced energy because raising the 

hammer at less than full power and then releasing it results in the hammer “bouncing” as it strikes the 

pile resulting in multiple “strikes.”

The standard operating procedures for pile driving safety could result in a secondary benefit to 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 (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 

civilian personnel, commercial aircraft, commercial vessels, Sailors, and Navy assets. 

The standard operating procedures for sinking exercise safety could result in a secondary benefit to 

public health and safety and socioeconomics through a reduction in the potential for interaction with 

sinking exercise activities. 

2.3.3.16 Coastal Zone 

As a matter of practice, the Navy typically does not conduct certain activities in coastal areas due to 

specific mission requirements. By deciding not to conduct certain activities in these coastal areas, 

potential impacts can be avoided in those areas. The coastal zone is 3 NM from shore for all states but 

Texas, the Florida Gulf coast, and Puerto Rico, which have a 9-NM limit. Training and testing activities 

that typically do not occur in the coastal zone are listed in Table 2.3-6 and Table 2.3-7, respectively. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-41 

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: Ship Shock Trial and Sinking Exercise Areas with Standard Operating Procedures 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-42 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-43 

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 Maneuver

 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 Exercise2

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 Coastal Zone is 3 nautical miles everywhere in the Study Area with the exceptions of the Gulf coast of Florida, Texas, and 

Puerto Rico where the coastal zone is 9 nautical miles.

2 This activity cannot occur in the coastal zone. 

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

Other Testing Activities

 Air Platform Shipboard Integrate Test
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.3-7: Testing Activities Typically Not Occurring in the Coastal Zone (continued) 

2-44 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Air Warfare Surface Warfare

Integrated/Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare  Maritime Security

 Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation

 Acoustic Component Testing

 Chemical and Biological Simulant Testing (coastal 

zone of Maine only)

 Hydrodynamic and Maneuverability Testing

 Non-Acoustic Component Testing

 Signature Analysis Operations

 Underwater Search, Deployment, and Recovery

 Acoustic and Oceanographic Research

 Emerging Mine Countermeasure Technology 

Research

 Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 

Testing

 At-Sea Sonar Testing

 Anti-Submarine Warfare Tactical Development 

Exercise

 Group Sail

 Navy Undersea Warfare Training Assessment Course

 Surface Warfare Advanced Tactical Training

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 Trial

2

 Submarine Sea Trials – Propulsion Testing

 Submarine Sea Trials – Weapons System Testing

 Total Ship Survivability Trials

1 Coastal Zone is 3 nautical miles everywhere in the Study Area with the exceptions of the Gulf coast of Florida, Texas, and 

Puerto Rico where the coastal zone is 9 nautical miles.

2

 This activity cannot occur in the coastal zone. 

2.3.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

The Navy implements mitigation to avoid potential impacts from the Proposed Action on biological, 

cultural, and socioeconomic resources. The Navy will implement procedural mitigation (which is 

mitigation that is applied whenever and wherever an applicable activity takes place in the Study Area) or 

mitigation within mitigation areas (which are geographic locations within the Study Area where the Navy 

will implement additional mitigation during all or part of the year) for the stressors and geographic 

locations listed in Table 2.3-8 and in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Figure 2.4-1 provides an 

overview of the areas in which the Navy will implement geographic mitigations. See Chapter 5 

(Mitigation) for a full discussion of how the Navy developed mitigation, and a complete presentation of 

the procedural mitigation and mitigation areas that will be implemented under Alternative 1 or 

Alternative 2 of the Proposed Action. The final suite of mitigation measures resulting from the ongoing 

planning, consultation, and permitting processes will be documented in the Final EIS/OEIS, the Navy’s 

Record of Decision, and all applicable authorizations or consultation documents. 

Table 2.3-8: Summary of Mitigation for Stressors and Geographic Locations 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation) 

Section

Activity Category, Stressor, or Geographic Location that Incorporates Procedural 

Mitigation or Mitigation Areas

Section 5.3.2, Acoustic 

Stressors

Low-Frequency Active Sonar

Mid-Frequency Active Sonar
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.3-8: Summary of Mitigation for Activity Categories, Stressors, and Geographic 

Locations (continued) 

2-45 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Chapter 5 (Mitigation) 

Section

Activity Category, Stressor, or Geographic Location that Incorporates Procedural 

Mitigation or Mitigation Areas

High-Frequency Active Sonar

Air Guns

Pile Driving

Weapons Firing Noise

Aircraft Overflight Noise

Section 5.3.3, Explosive 

Stressors

Explosive Sonobuoys

Explosive Torpedoes

Explosive Medium- and Large-Caliber Projectiles

Explosive Missiles 

Explosive Bombs

Sinking Exercises

Mine Countermeasure and Neutralization Activities Using Towed Influence Mine 

Sweep Systems and Unmanned/Remotely Operated Mine Neutralization Systems

Mine Neutralization Activities Using Explosive Ordnance Disposal

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 

Non-Explosive Bombs

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

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 developed regulations to implement 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 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-46 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and 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 informs 

the level of training, including the use of sonar sources and explosives, required by the Navy to meet its 

Title 10 responsibilities, which includes to maintain, train, and equip 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 this data was 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/Endangered Species Act (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 

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. 

 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-47 

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 2.4-1: Geographic Areas Where Navy Proposes to Conduct Mitigation Measures 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-48 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-49 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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 routine 

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 this data in developing the action 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-50 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

 testing of existing systems after repair and maintenance activities 

 routine 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 multidimensional 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 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-51 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

 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 

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. 

Computer simulation can provide familiarity and complement live training; however, it cannot provide 

the fidelity and level of training necessary to prepare naval forces for deployment. 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-52 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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 U.S.C. 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 

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. 

2.5 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, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-53 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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. This data 

allows for a more accurate projection of the number of active sonar hours required to meet antisubmarine 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. 

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 taking no action 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 Proposed Military Readiness Training and Testing Activities) 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’ 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-54 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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. 

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. Thus, even during routine non-combat operations, 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. As it stands, even with high levels of training and a culture of safety, injuries and death do 

occur. 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 battleready 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 influences 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-55 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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. 

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. 

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 2.6.2

(Proposed Testing Activities). 

2.5.2.3 Mitigation Measures 

In addition to standard operating procedures, the Navy proposes to implement procedural and 

geographic/temporal mitigation measures for Alternative 1, in addition to changes or additions to those 

mitigation measures as discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation). The final suite of mitigation measures 

resulting from the ongoing planning, consultation, and permitting processes will be documented in the 

Final EIS/OEIS, the Navy’s Record of Decision, and all applicable authorizations or consultation 

documents. These measures apply to both training and testing activities. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-56 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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 

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 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 as 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 nearpeer 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, in 

Section 2.6 (Proposed Training and Testing Activities for Both Alternatives). 

2.5.3.3 Mitigation Measures 

In addition to standard operating procedures, the Navy proposes to implement procedural and 

geographic/temporal mitigation measures for Alternative 2, in addition to changes or additions to those 

mitigation measures as discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation). The final suite of mitigation measures 

resulting from the ongoing planning, consultation, and permitting processes will be documented in the 

Final EIS/OEIS, the Navy’s Record of Decision, and all applicable authorizations or consultation 

documents. These measures apply to both training and testing activities. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-57 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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 (from the 2013–2018 

permitted level) the number of Composite Training Unit Exercises to be conducted during any 5-year 

period along the east coast 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 

analyzes 2 years of three Composite Training Unit Exercises (maximum years) and 3 years of two 

Composite Unit Training Exercises (representative years) occurring along the east coast. 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 the 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. 
Atlantic Fleet  

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS     June 2017

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
Atlantic Fleet  

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS     June 2017

2‐59  

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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 (see Appendix A,

Navy Activity Descriptions, for a discussion of

bins) than actually is present in the munition.

For example, 20‐millimeter rounds were

considered in bin E1 during Phase II, but have

less than 0.1 pounds 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.  

   

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-60 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

* 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 

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 responses 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 because the 

system is new and untested. 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/better historical data. Nonetheless, the inherent challenges and uncertainties in 

testing, as described previously, will continue to make projection of future testing requirements 

challenging. 

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 

-3,500

-3,000

-2,500

-2,000

-1,500

-1,000

-500

0

500

1,000

E1* E2 E3 E4* E5* E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12

Numbers of Explosives

Change in Five-Year Explosive Use from Phase II to 

Phase III (Training)
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-61 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

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.

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative 

Activity Name

Annual # of Activities1 5-Year # of Activities

Location2

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 4 20 VACAPES RCJAX RC

Integrated/Coordinated Training

Small Integrated AntiSubmarine Training

6 30 JAX RC

3 15 Navy Cherry Point RC

3 15 VACAPES RC

Medium Coordinated AntiSubmarine Warfare Training

2 10 JAX RC

1 5 Navy Cherry Point RC

1 5 VACAPES RC

Small Coordinated AntiSubmarine 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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued) 

2-62 

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

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 Areas

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

Missile Exercise – ManPortable 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

2 10 GOMEX

6 30 JAX RC

2 10 Navy Cherry Point RC

19 95 VACAPES RC

Naval Surface Fire Support 

Exercise - Land–Based Target 7 35 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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued) 

2-63 

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

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

Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Tracking Exercise – Ship

5* 5 25* 25 Northeast RC

110* 110 550* 550 Other AFTT Areas

5* 5 25* 25 GOMEX RC

440* 440 2,200* 2,200 JAX RC

55* 55 275* 275 Navy Cherry Point RC

220* 220 1,100* 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

10 50 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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued) 

2-64 

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

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

198 990 VACAPES RC

Personnel Insertion/ 

Extraction – Surface and 

Subsurface

2 10 Northeast RC

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 AntiTerrorism/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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued) 

2-65 

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

Savannah, GA

Tampa, FL

VACAPES RC

Wilmington, DE

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

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-toSurface

67 335 GOMEX RC

437 2,185 JAX RC

108 540 Navy Cherry Point RC

359 1,795 VACAPES RC

Fast Attack Craft and Fast 

Inshore Attack Craft Exercise

25 125 JAX RC

25 125 VACAPES RC

Gunnery Exercise 

Air-to-Surface MediumCaliber

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 

6 30 GOMEX RC

26 130 JAX RC
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued) 

2-66 

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

Medium-Caliber 128 640 Navy Cherry Point RC

2 10 Northeast RC

264 1,320 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 5 Other AFTT Areas

9 45 GOMEX RC

47 235 JAX RC

35 175 Navy Cherry Point RC

71 355 VACAPES RC

Gunnery Exercise

Surface-to-Surface Ship 

Medium-Caliber

42 210 Other AFTT Areas

26 130 GOMEX RC

119 595 JAX RC

41 205 Navy Cherry Point RC

245 1,225 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 4 20 JAX RC

4 20 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

110 550 JAX RC

10 50 Navy Cherry Point RC

100 500 VACAPES RC

Missile Exercise

Surface-to-Surface

15 75 JAX RC

7 35 VACAPES RC

Sinking Exercise 1 5 SINKEX Box
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued) 

2-67 

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

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

Submarine Sonar 

Maintenance

12 60 Other AFTT Areas

66 330 NSB New London

4 20 JAX RC

2 10 NSB Kings Bay

34 170 NS Norfolk

66 330 Northeast RC

2 10 Port Canaveral, FL

34 170 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

74 370 NS Mayport

160 800 NS Norfolk

Surface Ship Sonar 

Maintenance

0 18 0 90 Other AFTT Areas

50 250 JAX RC

50 250 NS Mayport

120 600 Navy Cherry Point RC

235 1,175 NS Norfolk

120 600 VACAPES RC
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.6-1: Proposed Training Activities per Alternative (continued) 

2-68 

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

Waterborne Training

42 210 GOMEX RC

55 275 JAX RC

141 705 Northeast RC

110 550 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. 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.

* For anti-submarine warfare tracking exercise – Ship, Alternative 1, 50 percent of requirements are met through synthetic 

training or other training exercises

AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; 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 EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-69 

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

3–27 27 39 135 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

Electronic Warfare

Chaff Test

20 100 GOMEX RC

4 20 JAX RC

24 120 VACAPES RC
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

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

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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.6-2: Naval Air Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative 

(continued) 

2-71 

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

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.

GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville; NSWC: Naval Surface Warfare Center; RC: Range Complex; VACAPES: Virginia 

Capes

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

SFOMF 

Northeast RC

VACAPES

4 20 JAX RC

2 10 Navy Cherry Point RC

8 40 NUWC Newport

12 60 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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

13 65 NS Norfolk

Pierside Sonar Testing 

(continued)

2 10 Pascagoula, MS

3 15 Port Canaveral, FL

2 10 PNS

Submarine Sonar 

Testing/Maintenance 

16 80 Norfolk, VA

24 120 PNS

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

8 40 GOMEX RC

11 55 Offshore Fort Pierce, 

FL

8 40 Navy Cherry Point RC

8 40 Northeast RC

30 150 NUWC Newport

11 55 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

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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

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

Mine Detection and 

Classification Testing

6 30 GOMEX RC

10 50 Navy Cherry Point RC

47–52 250 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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

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

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

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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 1 1

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

VACAPES RC

In-Port Maintenance 

Testing

24 120 NS Mayport

NS Norfolk

2 10 NS Mayport

5 25 NS Norfolk

Air Defense Testing

1 5 GOMEX RC

2 10 JAX RC

1 5 Northeast RC

5 25 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

Surface Warfare Testing

2 10 GOMEX RC

13 65 JAX RC

1 5 Key West RC

10 50 Northeast RC

9 45 VACAPES RC

Underwater Warfare 

Testing

2 10

JAX RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC

0–2 4

JAX RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

Northeast RC

SFOMF

VACAPES RC

2 10 GOMEX RC

6 30 JAX RC

3 15 Northeast RC

2 10 VACAPES RC

Small Ship Shock Trial 0–3 3

JAX RC

VACAPES RC

Submarine Sea Trials –

Propulsion Testing

1 5 JAX RC

1 5 Northeast RC

1 5 VACAPES RC
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

Submarine Sea Trials –

Weapons System Testing

2 10

Offshore Fort Pierce, 

FL

GOMEX RC

JAX

SFOMF

Northeast

VACAPES

4 20 JAX RC

4 20 Northeast RC

4 20 VACAPES RC

Total Ship Survivability 

Trials 0–1 1

JAX RC

VACAPES RC

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

Hydrodynamic and 

Maneuverability Testing 2 10

GOMEX RC

JAX RC

Key West RC

Navy Cherry Point RC

Northeast RC

VACAPES RC

Signature Analysis 

Operations

1 5 JAX RC

59 295 SFOMF

Underwater Search, 

Deployment, and 

Recovery

33 165 SFOMF

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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 2.6-3: Naval Sea Systems Command Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative 

(continued) 

2-77 

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

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: JEB LC-FS: Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story; GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville; 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

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

4 20 GOMEX RC

7 35 Northeast RC

2 10 VACAPES RC

Emerging Mine Countermeasure 

Technology Research 

1 5 JAX RC

2 10 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

Notes: GOMEX: Gulf of Mexico; JAX: Jacksonville, Florida; RC: Range Complex; VACAPES: Virginia Capes
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-78 

2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-79 

2.0 References

References 

U.S. Department of Defense. (2002). Electromagnetic Environmental Effects: Requirements for Systems. 

(MIL-STD-464A). 

U.S. Department of Defense. (2009). Protecting Personnel from Electromagnetic Fields. (DoD Instruction 

6055.11). 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011). U.S. Navy Dive Manual. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

2-80 

2.0 References

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

i 

Table of Contents

Draft 

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 Marine Species Density Database....................................................... 3.0-2

3.0.1.3 Developing Acoustic and Explosive Criteria and Thresholds .............. 3.0-3

3.0.1.4 Aquatic Habitats Database ................................................................. 3.0-4

3.0.2 Ecological Characterization of the Study Area .................................................... 3.0-4

3.0.2.1 Biogeographic Classifications.............................................................. 3.0-4

3.0.2.2 Bathymetry ....................................................................................... 3.0-12

3.0.2.3 Currents, Circulation Patterns, and Water Masses .......................... 3.0-14

3.0.2.4 Ocean Fronts ..................................................................................... 3.0-27

3.0.2.5 Abiotic Substrate .............................................................................. 3.0-27

3.0.3 Overall Approach to Analysis ............................................................................ 3.0-28

3.0.3.1 Resources and Issues Evaluated ....................................................... 3.0-31

3.0.3.2 Resources and Issues Eliminated from Further Consideration ......... 3.0-31

3.0.3.3 Identifying Stressors for Analysis ...................................................... 3.0-31

3.0.3.4 Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Individual Stressors .......... 3.0-104

3.0.3.5 Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Multiple Stressors ............ 3.0-105

3.0.3.6 Biological Resource Methods ......................................................... 3.0-106

List of Figures 

Figure 3.0-1: The Study Area with Large Marine Ecosystems and Open Ocean Areas ........................... 3.0-7

Figure 3.0-2: Three-Dimensional Representation of the Intertidal Zone (shoreline), 

Continental Margin, Abyssal Zone, and Water Column Zones ........................................ 3.0-13

Figure 3.0-3: Bathymetry of the Entire Study Area............................................................................... 3.0-15

Figure 3.0-4: Bathymetry of the Northeast Portion of the Study Area................................................. 3.0-17

Figure 3.0-5: Bathymetry of the Southeast and Caribbean Portions of the Study Area....................... 3.0-19

Figure 3.0-6: Bathymetry of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea Portions of the Study 

Area .................................................................................................................................. 3.0-21

Figure 3.0-7: Major Currents in the Study Area .................................................................................... 3.0-25

Figure 3.0-8: Average Sea Surface Temperature in the Study Area (2011–2015) ................................ 3.0-29
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.0-9: Traffic and Broadband Radiated Noise During a Composite Training Unit 

Exercise in the Southern California Range Complex ........................................................ 3.0-47

Figure 3.0-10: Relative Distribution of Commercial Vessel Traffic in Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Areas .................................................................................................. 3.0-49

Figure 3.0-11: Relative Distribution of U.S. Navy Vessel Traffic in Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing Study Areas ......................................................................................................... 3.0-50

Figure 3.0-12: Gun Blast and Projectile from a 5-in./54 Navy Gun....................................................... 3.0-55

Figure 3.0-13: Sonobuoy Launch Depicting the Relative Size of a Parachute ...................................... 3.0-97

Figure 3.0-14: Flow Chart of the Evaluation Process of Sound-Producing Activities ......................... 3.0-109

Figure 3.0-15: Two Hypothetical Threshold Shifts .............................................................................. 3.0-112

List of Tables 

Table 3.0-1: Summary of Current Patterns in Areas Located Outside the Range Complexes .............. 3.0-23

Table 3.0-2: Sonar and Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed .................................................. 3.0-36

Table 3.0-3: Training and Testing Air Gun Sources Quantitatively Analyzed in the Study Area ........... 3.0-43

Table 3.0-4: Sonar and Transducers Qualitatively Analyzed................................................................. 3.0-44

Table 3.0-5: Elevated Causeway System Pile Driving and Removal Underwater Sound Levels ........... 3.0-45

Table 3.0-6: Summary of Pile Driving and Removal Activities per 24-Hour Period .............................. 3.0-46

Table 3.0-7: Estimated Vessel Presence (Hours) in Study Area ............................................................ 3.0-46

Table 3.0-8: Representative Aircraft Sound Characteristics ................................................................. 3.0-51

Table 3.0-9: Sonic Boom Underwater Sound Levels Modeled for F/A-18 Hornet Supersonic 

Flight ................................................................................................................................ 3.0-53

Table 3.0-10: Examples of Weapons Noise ........................................................................................... 3.0-54

Table 3.0-11: Explosive Sources Quantitatively Analyzed that Could Be Used Underwater or 

at the Water Surface ........................................................................................................ 3.0-58

Table 3.0-12: Typical Air Explosive Munitions During Navy Activities .................................................. 3.0-59

Table 3.0-13: Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Electromagnetic Devices .......... 3.0-60

Table 3.0-14: Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices .................................................................................................. 3.0-61

Table 3.0-15: Activities Including High-Energy Lasers .......................................................................... 3.0-64

Table 3.0-16: Representative Vessel Types, Lengths, and Speeds ....................................................... 3.0-65

Table 3.0-17: Number and Location of Activities Including Vessels ..................................................... 3.0-66

Table 3.0-18: Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including Vessels .......................... 3.0-67

Table 3.0-19: Number of High Speed Vessel Hours for Small Crafts Associated with Training 

Activities in Inland Waters of the Study Area .................................................................. 3.0-68

Table 3.0-20: Representative Types, Sizes, and Speeds of In-Water Devices....................................... 3.0-69

Table 3.0-21: Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices ..................................... 3.0-69
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

iii

Table of Contents

Table 3.0-22: Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including In-Water 

Devices ............................................................................................................................. 3.0-70

Table 3.0-23: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Training Activities............................................................................................................. 3.0-71

Table 3.0-24: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Training Activities in Inland Waters ................................................................................. 3.0-72

Table 3.0-25: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Testing Activities .............................................................................................................. 3.0-73

Table 3.0-26: Number and Location of Explosives that May Result in Fragments Used During 

Training Activities............................................................................................................. 3.0-75

Table 3.0-27: Number and Location of Explosives that May Result in Fragments Used During 

Testing Activities .............................................................................................................. 3.0-77

Table 3.0-28: Number and Location of Targets Used or Expended During Training Activities ............ 3.0-79

Table 3.0-29: Number and Location of Targets Used or Expended During Training Activities 

in Inland Waters ............................................................................................................... 3.0-80

Table 3.0-30: Number and Location of Targets Used or Expended During Testing Activities .............. 3.0-80

Table 3.0-31: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Training Activities............................................................................................................. 3.0-82

Table 3.0-32: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Training Activities in Inland Waters ................................................................................. 3.0-86

Table 3.0-33: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Testing Activities .............................................................................................................. 3.0-86

Table 3.0-34: Number and Location of Activities Including Seafloor Devices ...................................... 3.0-90

Table 3.0-35: Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including Seafloor Devices ........... 3.0-91

Table 3.0-36: Number and Location of Activities Including Aircraft ..................................................... 3.0-92

Table 3.0-37: Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including Aircraft ......................... 3.0-92

Table 3.0-38: Number and Location of Wires and Cables Expended During Training Activities .......... 3.0-94

Table 3.0-39: Number and Location of Wires and Cables Expended During Testing Activities............ 3.0-95

Table 3.0-40: Activities Including Biodegradable Polymers During Testing Activities .......................... 3.0-98

Table 3.0-41: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities That May 

Result in Fragments ......................................................................................................... 3.0-99

Table 3.0-42: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities in Inland 

Waters That May Result in Fragments .......................................................................... 3.0-100

Table 3.0-43: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Testing Activities That May 

Result in Fragments ....................................................................................................... 3.0-101
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

iv

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 (Sections 3.3 through 3.9). 

Following the biological resource sections are human 

resource sections: cultural, socioeconomics, 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 Navy used the best available data, science, and information 

accepted by the 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 

and testing events and independently. In addition to monitoring activities associated with regulatory 

Resources Analyzed:

Physical Resources:

 Air Quality

 Sediments and Water Quality

Biological Resources:

 Vegetation

 Invertebrates

 Habitats

 Fishes

 Marine Mammals

 Reptiles

 Birds

Human Resources:

 Cultural

 Socioeconomic

 Public Health and Safety
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-2 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

compliance, two other United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (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 occurrence 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, 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, including 

physiological, behavioral, ecological, and population-level effects1

. 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 Marine Species Density Database 

A quantitative analysis of impacts on a species requires data on the occurrence, including abundance 

and concentration of the species population in the potentially impacted area. The most appropriate 

metric for this type of analysis is concentration of a species, known as 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 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. Modeled relationships rely on the location where the animals are 

 

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-3 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

sighted, 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 costs, resources, and effort involved in providing survey coverage to sufficiently estimate density. 

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 National Marine 

Fisheries Service (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 (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017c). These data are used as an input into the Navy 

Acoustic Effects Model. A detailed explanation of this analysis is provided in the technical report titled 

Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). 

3.0.1.3 Developing Acoustic and Explosive Criteria and Thresholds 

If proposed Navy activities introduce sound or explosive energy into the marine environment, an 

analysis of potential impacts on marine species is conducted. To do this, information about the 

numerical sound and energy levels that are likely to elicit certain types of physiological and behavioral 

reactions is needed. 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 to marine species. Working with NMFS, the 

Navy has developed updated criteria for marine mammals and sea turtles. Criteria for estimating 

impacts to marine fishes are also used in this analysis, which largely follows 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 (Finneran & Jenkins, 2012), recent and emerging science has necessitated an update to these 

criteria and thresholds for assessing potential impacts to 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 Impact to Marine 

Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a). A series of behavioral studies, largely 

funded by the 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 predicting 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-4 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

loss in marine mammals was largely adopted by NMFS for species within their purview (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2016). 

The Navy also uses criteria for estimating effects to fish 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 swimbladder 

versus fishes with swimbladder used in hearing) (Popper et al., 2014). Details on criteria used to 

estimate impacts to marine fishes are contained within the appropriate stressor section (e.g., sonar and 

other transducers, explosives). This panel of experts (Popper et al., 2014) also provided criteria for sea 

turtles, assigning “low”, “medium,” and “high” probability of specific categories of behavioral impacts 

due to exposure to sources located at “near,” “intermediate,” and “far” distances. 

3.0.1.4 Aquatic Habitats Database 

The AFTT and Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Aquatic Habitat Database was 

developed after the completion of the 2013 AFTT and HSTT 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 HSTT 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, 2016). 

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, not to interfere 

with existing civilian and commercial maritime and airspace boundaries. The Navy-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 (Bergmann et al., 2015). Primary productivity is the 

rate of the formation of organic material from inorganic carbon via photosynthesis (e.g., by marine 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-5 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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” (Bergmann et al., 2015). 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. 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-6 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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, 2009a). 

This large marine ecosystem extends off the east coast of Canada within the Labrador Current 

(Aquarone & Adams, 2009a). 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, 2009a). 

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, 2009b). This large marine ecosystem is located off the coast of the 

Canadian province of Nova Scotia and extends to the shelf break (Aquarone & Adams, 2009b). The 

Laurentian Channel in the north separates this large marine ecosystem from the Newfoundland‐

Labrador 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, 2009b). 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-7 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.0-1: The Study Area with Large Marine Ecosystems and Open Ocean Areas 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-8 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-9 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 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). 

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 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-10

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 off-shore 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 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 & 

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 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-11

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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, 2009a; 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, 1998). 

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; 

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 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-12

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.2.1.10 North 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 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 (water depth) 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. 

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. 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-13

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

North Carolina to 215 NM at its widest point off the coast of Newfoundland (Blanton et al., 2003; Slatt, 

1984). 

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, 2009b). 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).

Figure 3.0-2: Three-Dimensional Representation of the Intertidal Zone (shoreline), 

Continental Margin, Abyssal Zone, and Water Column Zones 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-14

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 (Shepard, 2005). 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 

(Roberts et al., 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 (Rowe & Kennicutt, 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. 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-15

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.0-3: Bathymetry of the Entire Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-16

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-17

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area, SINKEX = Sinking Exercise 

Figure 3.0-4: Bathymetry of the Northeast Portion of the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-18

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-19

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area, SINKEX = Sinking Exercise 

Figure 3.0-5: Bathymetry of the Southeast and Caribbean Portions of the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-20

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-21

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 and Caribbean Sea Portions of the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-22

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-23

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. 

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 (Huang & Tiedemann, 1998). 

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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-24

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

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (continued)

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. 

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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-25

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.0-7: Major Currents in the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-26

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-27

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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 (Rice et al., 2015; 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. 

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; Gallaway et al., 2001; Hamilton, 1990). 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).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-28

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

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. 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 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).

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-29

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.0-8: Average Sea Surface Temperature in the Study Area (2011–2015) 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-30

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-31

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. Human resources evaluated include cultural resources, 

socioeconomics, 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 carriesd 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 implementing the 

Proposed Action would result in activities that 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. Also, the proposed activities do not impact access to food 

sources. 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 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-32

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. 

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 3.0-13 (Annual Activities Including Electromagnetic Devices). 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 

3.0-31), strike stressors (Table 3.0-36), entanglement stressors (Table 3.0-38, and ingestion stressors 

(Table 3.0-31). 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 3.0-23) 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 3.0-13).

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 

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; 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-33

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 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 

(> 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 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-34

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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, a submarine‘s mission revolves around its stealth; therefore, 

submarine sonar is used infrequently because its use would also reveal a submarine’s location. Antisubmarine 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 or temporary minefields close to 

strategic ports and harbors. 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. 

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. 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, as follows: 

 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-35

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-36

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-2: Sonar and Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed 

Source Class 

Category

Bin Description o 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):

o Sources that 

produce signals less 

than 1 kHz

LF3 LF sources greater 

than 200 dB H 0 0 0 0 1,188 5,940 1,188 5,940

LF4

LF sources equal to 

180 dB and up to 

200 dB

H 0 0 0 0 641 3,205 641 3,205

C 0 0 0 0 20 100 20 100

LF5 LF sources less 

than 180 dB H 0 0 0 0 1,632 8,160 1,632 8,160

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):

o 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 3,417 17,084 3,417 17,084

MF1K

Kingfisher mode 

associated with 

MF1 sonars

H 58 290 58 290 152 760 152 760

MF3

Hull-mounted 

submarine sonars 

(e.g., AN/BQQ-10)

C

49,188–

49,227 246,017 49,265 246,321 20,681 103,405 20,681 103,405

MF4

Helicopterdeployed dipping 

sonars (e.g., 

AN/AQS-22)

H 591–611 2,994 630 3,150 412–803 2,792 803 4,015

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-37

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):

o Tactical and nontactical sources that 

produce signals 

between 1 and 10 

kHz

o (continued)

MF6

Active underwater 

sound signal 

devices (e.g., MK 

84)

C 0 0 0 0

1,256–

1,341 6,450 1,391 6,955

MF8

Active sources 

(greater than 200 

dB) not otherwise 

binned

H 0 0 0 0 228 1,140 228 1,140

MF9

Active sources 

(equal to 180 dB 

and up to 200 dB) 

not otherwise 

binned

H 0 0 0 0

9,765–

9,932 49,023 9,765–9,932 49,023

MF10

Active sources 

(greater than 160 

dB, but less than 

180 dB) not 

otherwise binned

H 0 0 0 0 6,530 32,651 6,530 32,651

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-38

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):

o 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 9,672 582 2,908 582 2,908

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 2,824 14,120 2,824 14,120

C 0 0 0 0 40 200 40 200

o HF6

o Active sources 

(equal to 180 dB 

and up to 200 dB) 

not otherwise 

binned

H 0 0 0 0 2,193 10,964 2,193 10,964

o HF7

o 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

o HF8

o Hull-mounted 

surface ship sonars 

(e.g., AN/SQS-61)

H 18 90 18 90 2,084 10,419 2,084 10,419
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-39

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 High 

Frequency Sonars 

(VHF): Non-tactical 

sources that 

produce signals 

between 100 and

200 kHz 

VHF1

Very high 

frequency sources 

greater than 200 

dB

H 0 0 0 0 12 60 12 60

Anti-Submarine 

Warfare (ASW):

o 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 3,208 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 4,636–5,486 24,880 5,986 29,930

ASW3

MF towed active 

acoustic 

countermeasure 

systems (e.g., 

AN/SLQ-25)

H

4,485–

5,445 24,345 6,690 34,800 4,941 24,704 4,941 24,704

ASW4

MF expendable 

active acoustic 

device 

countermeasures 

(e.g., MK 3)

C 426–432 2,138 438 2,186 3,723 18,615 3,723 18,615

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

Torpedoes (TORP):

o 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 1,228–

1,352 6,448 1,332 6,660

TORP2

Heavyweight 

torpedo (e.g., MK48)C 80 400 80 400 934 4,670 934 4,670

Forward Looking 

Sonar (FLS):

o 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

FLS3

VHF sources with 

short pulse 

lengths, narrow 

beam widths, and 

focused beam 

patterns

H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

o Acoustic Modems 

(M): Systems used 

to transmit data 

through the water

M3

MF acoustic 

modems (greater 

than 190 dB)

H 0 0 0 0 1,269 6,344 1,269 6,344
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

Swimmer Detection 

Sonars (SD):

o 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):

o 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 42,000 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

o Broadband Sound 

Sources (BB):

o 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 0 516–2,892 4,956 516–

2,892 4,956
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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

o 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-43

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 listed in the classified bin list). 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. 

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, RI. Table 3.0-3 shows 

the number of air guns shots proposed in the AFTT Study Area. 

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 SEL per shot. 

Table 3.0-3: 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.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-44

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-4: 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)

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)

3.0.3.3.1.3 Pile Driving 

Impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal would occur during construction of an Elevated Causeway 

System, a temporary pier that allows the offloading of ships in areas without a permanent port. 

Construction of the elevated causeway could occur in sandy shallow water coastal areas at Joint 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-45

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. 

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 in the range of 36–50 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 peak

182 dB re 1 μPa2s SEL (single strike)

24-in. Steel 

Pipe Pile Vibratory2

146 dB re 1 μPa SPL rms

145 dB re 1 μPa2s SEL (per second of duration)

1

Illingworth and Rodkin (2016), 

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, 2016). During vibratory extraction, the three aspects that generate 

airborne noise are the crane, the power plant, and the vibratory extractor. The average sound level 

recorded in air during vibratory extraction was about 85 dBA re 20 μPa (94 dB re 20 μPa) within a range 

of 10-15 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. 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 10 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-46

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

approximately 10 days. Crews would remove about 12 piles per 24-hour period, each taking about three 

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 10 minutes 60 minutes

Pile Removal 

(Vibratory) 12 3 minutes 36 minutes

Pile driving for elevated causeway system training 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).

3.0.3.3.1.4 Vessel Noise 

Vessel noise, in particular commercial shipping, is a major contributor to noise in the ocean and 

intensively used inland 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. 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, Navy ships make up roughly 1 percent of the vessel presence in the AFTT Study Area. Navy 

ship traffic is more concentrated around the homeports of Norfolk, VA and Jacksonville, FL. The Navy 

contributes 1 percent of radiated broadband noise in the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range 

Complexes (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011). However, since Navy ships are quieter (Mintz, 2012a; Mintz & 

Filadelfo, 2011), they are most likely contributing less than 1 percent of the overall total vessel 

broadband noise in the entire AFTT study area. 

Table 3.0-7: Estimated Vessel Presence (Hours) in Study Area 

Ship Category AFTT

Non-military 9,970,244

Military 72,094

Notes: Ship-hours were calculated from representative data to assess the relative 

contribution. The totals given represent a relative fraction of actual vessel 

presence (Mintz, 2012a).

Figure 3.0-9 shows a comparison of ship hours to energy emitted during a Composite Training Unit 

Exercise, a major training exercise, an event during which Navy vessel traffic would be higher than usual 

in the Study Area (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011). Although this data was gathered for a Composite Training 

Unit Exercise conducted in the Southern California Range Complex, it shows how the Navy contribution 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-47

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

to overall vessel noise changes during a major training exercise. Even during this period of greater than 

typical Navy vessel use, the Navy contribution to overall vessel noise in the Study Area is low. 

Source: Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011

Figure 3.0-9: Traffic and Broadband Radiated Noise During a Composite Training Unit Exercise 

in the Southern California Range Complex 

Studies to determine traffic patterns of Navy and non-Navy vessels in the Study Area were conducted by 

the Center for Naval Analysis (Mintz, 2012a; Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011; Mintz & Parker, 2006). SeaLink 

data from 2009 for U.S. Navy and non-military vessels was used, which included Navy surface vessels, 

cargo vessels, bulk carriers, commercial fishing vessels, oil tankers, passenger vessels, tugs, and research 

vessels. SeaLink data includes only vessels over 65 ft. in length so smaller navy vessels and pleasure craft 

are not included, and vessel position records in SeaLink 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, 2012a; Mintz & Filadelfo, 

2011). 

Exposure to vessel noise would be greatest in the areas 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, FL 

(Mintz, 2012a), 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, VA, and Jacksonville, FL (Mintz & Parker, 

2006). 

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). For comparison, McKenna et al. (2012) determined that container ships produced 

broadband source levels around 188 dB re 1 μPa and a typical fishing vessel radiates noise at a source 

level of about 158 dB re 1 μPa (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011; Richardson et al., 1995; Urick, 1983). The 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-48

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 about 50 Hz and by 

broadband components related to cavitation and flow noise at higher frequencies (approximately 

around the one-third 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 types 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. During training, speeds of most large naval vessels (greater than 60 ft.) generally 

range from 10 to 15 knots for fuel consumption; however, ships will, on occasion, operate at higher 

speeds within their specific operational capabilities. 

Anti-submarine warfare platforms (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 platforms are much quieter than 

Navy oil tankers, for example, which have a smaller presence but contribute substantially more 

broadband noise than anti-submarine warfare platforms (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 events, would be operating within the Study Area. 

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 

movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration. Navy vessels do contribute to the overall 

increased ambient noise in inland 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), as shown in the hours of vessel 

presence (Table 3.0-7) and the relative distribution of vessel traffic (Figure 3.0-10 and Figure 3.0-11).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-49

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.0-10: Relative Distribution of Commercial Vessel Traffic in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Areas 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-50

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.0-11: Relative Distribution of U.S. Navy Vessel Traffic in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Areas 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-51

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.0.3.3.1.5 Aircraft Overflight 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. Most aircraft noise would be produced around air stations outside the 

Study Area. Military activities involving aircraft generally are dispersed over large expanses of open 

ocean but can be highly concentrated in time and location. Table 3.0-8 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 3.0-8: 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

s

4**(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)

Sources: 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

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-52

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 3.0-8. 

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, 2009b). 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, 2009a). 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 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-53

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

the strength of a boom. In general, an increase in flight path angle (lifting the aircraft’s noise) 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 (Laney & Cavanagh, 2000). These results are shown in Table 3.0-9. 

Table 3.0-9: 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)
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-54

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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). 

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 for safety reasons. 

Small- and medium-caliber weapons firing could occur throughout the Study Area. 

Examples of some types of weapons noise are shown in Table 3.0-10. Examples of launch noise are 

provided in the table. Noise produced by other weapons and devices are described further below. 

Table 3.0-10: 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

Sources: 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)

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. 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 (Pater, 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-55

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 

shell in flight at supersonic speeds propagates in a cone (generally about 65°) behind the projectile in 

the direction of fire (Pater, 1981). Exposure to the bow shock wave is very brief. 

Projectiles from a 5 in./54 gun would travel at approximately 2,600 ft./sec, and the associated bow 

shock wave is subjectively described as a “crack” noise (Pater, 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) (Pater, 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 Pater (1981). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-56

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. 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 3.0-10. 

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 

Although not a weapon, the Long Range Acoustic Device (and other hailing and deterrent sources) is 

considered along with in-air sounds produced by Navy sources. The Long Range Acoustic Device is a 

communication device that can be used to warn vessels from continuing towards a high value asset by 

emitting loud sounds in air. The system would typically be used in training activities near shore, 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. 

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). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-57

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. 

In order to better organize and facilitate the analysis of explosives used by the Navy during training and 

testing 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 3.0-11. 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 

3.0-11, the Navy uses some very small impulsive sources (<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 

determine the appropriate determinations 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-58

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-11: 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 10,340 51,700 10,340 51,700 17,840–

26,840 116,200 26,840 134,200

E2 > 0.25–0.5 Medium-caliber projectile 210–214 1,062 214 1,070 0 0 0 0

E3 > 0.5–2.5 Large-caliber projectile 3,286 16,430 3,286 16,430 2,814–

3,182 15,006 3,182 15,910

E4 > 2.5–5 Mine neutralization charge 127–133 653 133 665 746–800 3,784 810 4,050

E5 > 5–10 5 in. projectile 4,140 20,700 4,140 20,700 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 48 240 48 240 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-59

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-toair missile exercises conducted during air warfare. These explosions typically occur far above the water 

surface. Some typical types of explosive munitions that would be detonated in air during Navy activities 

are shown in Table 3.0-12. Various missiles, rockets, and medium and large 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 Material and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses).

Table 3.0-12: 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 HE-ET 7 < 100

5"54 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; 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 3.0-11), 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., Swisdak (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 a sufficient altitude that a large 

portion of the sound refracts upward due to cooling temperatures with increased altitude. 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-60

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 3.0-13 shows the number and location of proposed activities, 

primarily mine sweeping, that include the use of in-water electromagnetic devices. 

Table 3.0-13: 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 890 890 4,450 4,450

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 193 193 965 965

Jacksonville Range Complex 165 165 825 825

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 104 104 520 520

Inland Waters (Table 3.0-14) 68 68 204 340

Total 1,420 1,420 6,964 7,100

Testing

Virginia Capes Range Complex 184 184 920 920

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 12 12 60 60

Jacksonville Range Complex 102 102 510 510

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 40 40 200 200

NUWC Newport Testing Range 660 660 3,300 3,300

SFOMF 3 3 15 15

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 3 3 15 15

Inland Waters (Table 3.0-14) 100 100 500 500

Total 1,104 1,104 5,520 5,520

Notes: NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility; 

NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center

Table 3.0-14 shows where within the inland 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-61

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 3.0-14: Number and Location of Activities in Inland 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 20

Earle, NJ 4 4 12 20

Wilmington, DE 4 4 12 20

Delaware Bay, DE 4 4 12 20

Hampton Roads, VA 8 8 24 40

Morehead City, NC 8 8 24 40

Savannah, GA 4 4 12 20

Kings Bay, GA 4 4 12 20

Mayport, FL 4 4 12 20

Port Canaveral, FL 8 8 24 40

Tampa, FL 4 4 12 20

Beaumont, TX 8 8 24 40

Corpus Christi, TX 4 4 12 20

Total 68 68 204 340

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-62

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 

3.0-17 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-63

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 (Swope, 2010). The assessment determined that the maximum potential for laser 

exposure is at the ocean’s surface, where laser intensity is greatest (Swope, 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 or 

longer to sustain damage. Swope (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 3.0-15 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. 

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 3.0-16 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, provide the latest information on the quantity and 

specifications of the vessels operated by the Navy. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-64

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-15: 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 40 40

Virginia Capes Range Complex 116 116 580 580

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Jacksonville Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Key West Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 8 8 40 40

NUWC Newport Testing Range 8 8 40 40

SFOMF 8 8 40 40

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 8 8 40 40

Total 180 180 900 900

Notes: NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility; 

NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center

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 between 10 and 

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, 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-off 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 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 inland waters. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-65

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-16: Representative Vessel Types, Lengths, and Speeds 

Type Example(s) Length

Typical 

Operating 

Speed

Aircraft Carrier Aircraft Carrier (CVN) >1000 ft. 10–15 knots 

Surface Combatant Cruisers (CG), Destroyers (DDG), Frigates (FF), 

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

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 inland 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 inland 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 (2012b) 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-66

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 3.0-17 shows the number and location of proposed activities that include the use of vessels in the 

Study Area. Each activity included in Table 3.0-17 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 3.0-18 shows the number 

and location of proposed activities that include the use of vessels in the inland waters of the Study Area. 

Each activity included in Table 3.0-18 could involve one or more vessels. With the exception of the 

establishment of the Undersea Warfare Training Range in the offshore waters off the coast of Florida, 

these established training and testing areas have not appreciably changed in several decades and are 

not expected to change in the foreseeable future. 

Table 3.0-17: 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 373 375 1,153 1,165

Virginia Capes Range Complex 10,821 10,931 50,753 51,315

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 6,590 6,617 32,919 33,080

Jacksonville Range Complex 8,956 9,176 44,038 45,180

Key West Range Complex 141 141 705 705

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 642 658 3,208 3,290

Other AFTT Areas 503 521 2,515 2,605

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-18) 3,189 3,189 16,505 15,537

Total 31,215 31,608 151,796 152,986

Testing

Northeast Range Complexes 945 948 4,449 4,737

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,345 1,346 5,915 6,612

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 755 756 3,768 3,776

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,060 1,065 5,109 5,239

Key West Range Complex 351 351 1,646 1,748

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 426 426 2,089 2,110

NUWC Newport Testing Range 697 697 3,479 3,479

SFOMF 149 149 742 742

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 404 404 1,992 1,992

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-18) 166 166 828 728

Total 6,298 6,308 30,017 31,163
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-67

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-18: Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including Vessels 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Activities 5-Year # of Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Training

Boston, MA 1 1 3 5

Groton, CT 235 235 1,175 1,175

Narragansett, RI 198 198 990 990

Earle, NJ 1 1 3 5

Wilmington, DE 1 1 3 5

Delaware Bay, DE 1 1 3 5

James Rivers & Tributaries, VA 705 705 3,525 3,525

York River, VA 125 125 625 625

Lower Chesapeake Bay, VA 1,017 1,017 5,085 5,085

Hampton Roads, VA 2 2 6 10

Norfolk, VA 406 406 2,620 2,620

Morehead City, NC 1 1 3 5

Cooper River, SC 60 60 300 300

Savannah, GA 1 1 3 5

Kings Bay, GA 6 6 28 30

Mayport, FL 327 327 1,633 1,635

St. Johns River, FL 2 2 10 10

Port Canaveral, FL 46 46 228 230

Tampa, FL 1 1 3 5

St. Andrew's Bay, FL 50 50 250 252

Beaumont, TX 2 2 6 10

Corpus Christi, TX 1 1 3 5

Total 3,189 3,189 16,505 16,537

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 11 11 51 51

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 166 166 828 828
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-68

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

As stated earlier, activities that include vessel movements in the inland 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 crafts are provided in Table 3.0-19. 

Table 3.0-19: Number of High Speed Vessel Hours for Small Crafts Associated with Training 

Activities in Inland 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 Rivers & 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's 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. Consequently, even with the addition of Undersea 

Warfare Training Range off the coast of Florida, the Navy is not proposing appreciable changes in the 

levels, frequency, or locations where vessels have been used 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 3.0-20 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 3.0-21 shows the number and location of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-69

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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). 

Table 3.0-20: 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 3.0-21: 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 9 11 43 55

Virginia Capes Range Complex 3,809 3,939 19,009 19,695

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 819 856 4,021 4,280

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,357 1,717 6,677 8,585

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 385 423 1,923 2,115

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 328 328 1,640 1,640

Other AFTT Areas 110 110 550 550

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-22) 777 777 3,615 3,886

Total 6,894 7,461 37,478 40,806

Testing

Northeast Range Complexes 185 185 928 928

Virginia Capes Range Complex 316 316 1,337 1,580

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 48 48 237 237

Jacksonville Range Complex 549 549 2,612 2,612

Key West Range Complex 1 1 8 8

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 318 318 1,588 1,588

NUWC Newport Testing Range 1,771 1,771 8,825 8,825
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-70

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-21: 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 619 619 3,455 3,455

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 1,563 1,563 7,704 7,704

Total 5,370 5,370 26,694 26,937

Notes: NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility; 

NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center

Table 3.0-22: Number and Location of Activities in Inland 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 9 9 27 45

Earle, NJ 9 9 27 45

Wilmington, DE 9 9 27 45

Delaware Bay, DE 9 9 27 45

Lower Chesapeake Bay 426 426 2,130 2,130

Hampton Roads, VA 18 18 54 90

James River and Tributaries 90 90 450 450

York River 19 19 95 95

Morehead City, NC 9 9 27 45

Savannah, GA 9 9 27 45

Kings Bay, GA 31 31 137 156

Mayport, FL 44 44 202 220

Port Canaveral, FL 9 9 27 45

Tampa, FL 9 9 27 45

St. Andrew's Bay 50 50 250 250

Beaumont, TX 18 18 54 90

Corpus Christi, TX 9 9 27 45

Total 777 777 3,615 3,886

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 3.0-23, Table 3.0-24 and Table 3.0-25), (2) fragments from 

high-explosive munitions (Table 3.0-26 and Table 3.0-27), (3) expendable targets (Table 3.0-28, Table 

3.0-29, and Table 3.0-30), and (4) expended materials other than munitions, such as sonobuoys or 

torpedo accessories (Table 3.0-31 and 

Table 3.0-32). See Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Calculations) for more 

information on the type and quantities of military expended materials proposed to be used. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-71

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 

bottom will be discussed as an alteration of the bottom substrate and associated organisms (e.g., 

invertebrates and vegetation). 

Table 3.0-23: 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 2,248 2,248 11,240 11,240

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 596 596 2,980 2,980

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,366 1,366 6,830 6,830

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 270 270 1,350 1,350

Total 4,480 4,480 22,400 22,400

Rockets

Virginia Capes Range Complex 2,708 2,708 13,538 13,538

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 289 289 1,444 1,444

Jacksonville Range Complex 2,997 2,997 14,982 14,982

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 289 289 1,444 1,444

Total 6,283 6,283 31,408 31,408

Rockets (Flechette)

Virginia Capes Range Complex 143 143 712 712

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 15 15 76 76

Jacksonville Range Complex 157 157 788 788

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 15 15 76 76

Total 330 330 1,652 1,652

Large Caliber Projectiles

Virginia Capes Range Complex 3,802 3,802 19,010 19,010

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1,134 1,134 5,670 5,670

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,388 1,388 6,940 6,940

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 638 638 3,190 3,190

Other AFTT Areas 196 196 980 980

Total 7,158 7,158 35,790 35,790

Large Caliber – Casings Only

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 960 960 4,800 4,800

Total 960 960 4,800 4,800
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-72

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-23: 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 800,769 800,769 4,003,845 4,003,845

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 358,574 358,574 1,792,870 1,792,870

Jacksonville Range Complex 439,234 439,234 2,196,170 2,196,170

Key West Range Complex 56,000 56,000 280,000 280,000

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 32,000 32,000 160,000 160,000

Other AFTT Areas 21,251 21,251 106,250 106,250

Total 1,708,828 1,708,828 8,544,135 8,544,135

Small Caliber Projectiles

Northeast Range Complexes 36,600 36,600 135,000 135,000

Virginia Capes Range Complex 3,806,350 3,806,350 19,031,750 19,031,750

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 833,675 833,675 4,168,375 4,168,375

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,436,275 1,436,275 7,181,375 7,181,375

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 237,500 237,500 1,187,500 1,187,500

Other AFTT Areas 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Total 6,550,400 6,550,400 32,704,000 32,704,000

Small Caliber – Casings Only

Virginia Capes Range Complex 3,400 3,400 17,000 17,000

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,000 1,000 5,000 5,000

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-24) 157,020 157,020 781,100 781,100

Total 161,420 161,420 803,100 803,100

1 Non-explosive torpedoes are recovered after use.

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

Table 3.0-24: Number and Location of Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Expended During 

Training Activities in Inland Waters 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Munitions 5-Year # of Munitions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Narragansett, RI 8,320 8,320 41,600 41,600

James Rivers & Tributaries 102,000 102,000 510,000 510,000

Lower Chesapeake Bay 28,800 28,800 140,000 140,000

Cooper River, SC 5,100 5,100 25,500 25,500

Port Canaveral, FL 12,800 12,800 64,000 64,000

Total 157,020 157,020 781,100 781,100
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-73

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-25: 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

Airborne Mine Neutralization System Neutralizer

Virginia Capes Range Complex 180 195 740 975

Jacksonville Range Complex 50 50 250 250

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 100 100 500 500

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 84 99 364 495

Total 414 444 1,854 2,220

Torpedoes 1

Northeast Range Complexes 240 240 1,192 1,192

Virginia Capes Range Complex 465 465 2,074 2,317

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 128 128 642 642

Jacksonville Range Complex 571 571 2,778 2,847

Key West Range Complex 4 4 12 12

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 236 236 1,172 1,172

NUWC Newport Testing Range 120 120 600 600

SFOMF 34 34 170 170

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 240 240 1,200 1,200

Total 2,038 2,038 9,840 10,152

Bombs

Virginia Capes Range Complex 964 964 4,820 4,820

Jacksonville Range Complex 12 12 60 60

Total 976 976 4,880 4,880

Rockets

Virginia Capes Range Complex 746 746 3,644 3,728

Jacksonville Range Complex 406 406 1,945 2,029

Total 1,152 1,152 5,589 5,757

Rockets (Flechette)

Virginia Capes Range Complex 248 248 1,215 1,243

Jacksonville Range Complex 135 135 648 676

Total 383 383 1,863 1,919

Missiles

Northeast Range Complexes 24 24 120 120

Virginia Capes Range Complex 899 899 4,463 4,495

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 24 24 120 120

Jacksonville Range Complex 136 136 672 680

Key West Range Complex 31 31 155 155

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 24 24 120 120

Total 1,138 1,138 5,650 5,690
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-74

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-25: 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

Kinetic Energy Rounds

Northeast Range Complexes 35,003 35,003 175,017 175,017

Virginia Capes Range Complex 35,003 35,003 175,017 175,017

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 35,003 35,003 175,017 175,017

Jacksonville Range Complex 35,003 35,003 175,017 175,017

Key West Range Complex 35,003 35,003 175,017 175,017

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 35,003 35,003 175,017 175,017

NUWC Newport Testing Range 4 4 17 17

SFOMF 4 4 17 17

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 4 4 17 17

Total 210,030 210,030 1,050,153 1,050,153

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 239,660 239,660 1,180,300 1,198,300

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 554,860 554,860 2,720,300 2,774,300
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-75

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-25: 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

Kinetic Energy Rounds

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 3.0-26: 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 62 306 310

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1 1 5 5

Jacksonville Range Complex 2 2 6 10

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 22 22 106 110

Total 87 87 423 435

Grenades

Northeast Range Complexes 56 56 280 280

Virginia Capes Range Complex 70 70 350 350

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 210 210 1,050 1,050

Bombs

Virginia Capes Range Complex 76 76 380 380

Jacksonville Range Complex 50 50 250 250

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 4 4 20 20
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-76

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-26: 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 142 142 710 710

Rockets

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,254 1,254 6,270 6,270

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 76 76 380 380

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,330 1,330 6,650 6,650

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 76 76 380 380

Total 2,736 2,736 13,680 13,680

Missiles

Northeast Range Complexes 4 4 20 20

Virginia Capes Range Complex 155 155 775 775

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 106 106 530 530

Jacksonville Range Complex 136 136 680 680

Key West Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 8 8 40 40

SINKEX Area 4 4 20 20

Total 421 421 2,105 2,105

Large Caliber Projectiles

Virginia Capes Range Complex 2,998 2,998 14,990 14,990

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 756 756 3,780 3,780

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,160 1,160 5,800 5,800

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 260 260 1,300 1,300

Other AFTT Areas 96 96 480 480

SINKEX Area 200 200 1,000 1,000

Total 5,470 5,470 27,350 27,350

Medium Caliber Projectiles

Virginia Capes Range Complex 65,312 65,312 326,560 326,560

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 23,200 23,200 116,000 116,000

Jacksonville Range Complex 58,952 58,952 294,760 294,760

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 6,250 6,250 31,250 31,250

Other AFTT Areas 1,350 1,350 6,750 6,750

Total 155,064 155,064 775,320 775,320

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; SINKEX = Sinking Exercise
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-77

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-27: 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 3 3 29 29

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 12 12 60 60

Total 42 42 194 194

Explosive Sonobuoys

Key West Range Complex 72 72 360 360

Total 72 72 360 360

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 2 2 10 10

Total 2 2 10 10

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 176 176 830 880

Jacksonville Range Complex 70 70 327 350

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 12 12 30 60

Total 268 268 1,237 1,340

Buoys

Northeast Range Complexes 710 725 3,268 3,622

Virginia Capes Range Complex 576 581 2,517 2,902

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 337 342 1,667 1,707

Jacksonville Range Complex 399 424 1,992 2,117

Key West Range Complex 706 706 3,497 3,527

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 352 352 1,682 1,757

Total 3,080 3,130 14,623 15,632
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-78

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-27: 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 142 142 710 710

Virginia Capes Range Complex 160 160 800 800

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 42 42 210 210

Jacksonville Range Complex 156 156 780 780

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 142 142 710 710

Total 642 642 3,210 3,210

Mines

Virginia Capes Range Complex 10 15 50 75

Jacksonville Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 16 16 80 80

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 4 9 20 45

Total 38 48 190 240

Large Caliber Projectiles

Northeast Range Complexes 132 132 660 660

Virginia Capes Range Complex 3,263 3,263 16,315 16,315

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 132 132 660 660

Jacksonville Range Complex 6,376 6,376 31,880 31,880

Key West Range Complex 832 832 4,160 4,160

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 923 923 4,615 4,615

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 100 100 500 500

Total 11,758 11,758 58,790 58,790

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: 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-79

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-28: Number and Location of Targets Used or Expended During Training Activities 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Air Targets

Northeast Range Complexes 4 4 20 20

Virginia Capes Range Complex 78 78 390 390

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 85 85 425 425

Jacksonville Range Complex 65 65 325 325

Key West Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Total 248 248 1,240 1,240

Surface Targets 1

Northeast Range Complexes 2 2 10 10

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,215 1,215 6,075 6,075

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 598 598 2,990 2,990

Jacksonville Range Complex 775 775 3,875 3,875

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 51 51 255 255

Other AFTT Areas 3 3 15 15

Total 2,644 2,644 13,220 13,220

Surface Targets (Stationary)

Virginia Capes Range Complex 4 4 20 20

Total 4 4 20 20

Subsurface Targets (Mobile)1

Northeast Range Complexes 100 102 498 510

Virginia Capes Range Complex 291 401 1,455 2,005

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 81 108 403 540

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,108 1,328 5,540 6,640

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 3 5 13 25

Other AFTT Areas 179 179 891 891

Total 1,762 2,123 8,800 10,611

Mine Shapes 1

Virginia Capes Range Complex 292 292 1,456 1,460

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 24 24 120 120

Jacksonville Range Complex 60 60 292 300

Key West Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 60 60 292 300

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-29) 68 68 204 340

Total 504 504 2,404 2,560

Ship Hulks

SINKEX Area 1 1 5 5

Total 1 1 5 5

1 Many of these items 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; SINKEX = Sinking Exercise
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-80

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-29: Number and Location of Targets Used or Expended During Training Activities in 

Inland Waters 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Mine Shapes

Boston, MA 4 4 12 20

Earle, NJ 4 4 12 20

Delaware Bay, DE 4 4 12 20

Hampton Roads, VA 8 8 24 40

Morehead City, NC 8 8 24 40

Wilmington, NC 4 4 12 20

Savannah, GA 4 4 12 20

Kings Bay, GA 4 4 12 20

Mayport, FL 4 4 12 20

Port Canaveral, FL 8 8 24 40

Tampa, FL 4 4 12 20

Beaumont, TX 8 8 24 40

Corpus Christi, TX 4 4 12 20

Total 68 68 204 340

Table 3.0-30: Number and Location of Targets Used or Expended During Testing Activities 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Aerial Drones1

Northeast Range Complexes 6 6 28 28

Virginia Capes Range Complex 480 480 2,397 2,398

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 6 6 28 28

Jacksonville Range Complex 174 174 868 868

Key West Range Complex 6 6 28 28

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 6 6 28 28

NUWC Newport Testing Range 6 6 28 28

SFOMF 6 6 28 28

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 6 6 28 28

Total 696 696 3,461 3,462

Air Target 1

Northeast Range Complexes 60 60 300 300

Virginia Capes Range Complex 60 60 300 300

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 60 60 300 300

Jacksonville Range Complex 60 60 300 300

Key West Range Complex 60 60 300 300

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 70 70 350 350

Total 370 370 1,850 1,850
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-81

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-30: Number and Location of Targets Used or 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 1

Northeast Range Complexes 111 111 552 552

Virginia Capes Range Complex 400 400 1,904 1,907

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 111 111 552 552

Jacksonville Range Complex 228 228 1,038 1,137

Key West Range Complex 111 111 552 552

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 121 121 572 602

NUWC Newport Testing Range 13 13 62 62

SFOMF 13 13 62 62

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 13 13 62 62

Total 1,121 1,121 5,356 5,578

Surface Targets (Mobile)1

Northeast Range Complexes 1 1 4 4

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1 1 4 4

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1 1 4 4

Jacksonville Range Complex 1 1 4 4

Key West Range Complex 1 1 4 4

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1 1 4 4

Total 6 6 24 24

Surface Targets (Stationary) 1

Northeast Range Complexes 61 61 305 305

Virginia Capes Range Complex 61 61 305 305

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 61 61 305 305

Jacksonville Range Complex 61 61 305 305

Key West Range Complex 61 61 305 305

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 61 61 305 305

Total 366 366 1,830 1,830

Sub-Surface Targets (Mobile)1

Northeast Range Complexes 100 100 500 500

Virginia Capes Range Complex 105 105 525 525

Jacksonville Range Complex 265 265 1,325 1,325

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 100 100 500 500

NUWC Newport Testing Range 240 240 1,200 1,200

Total 810 810 4,050 4,050
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-82

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-30: Number and Location of Targets Used or 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 1

Northeast Range Complexes 5,600 5,600 28,000 28,000

Virginia Capes Range Complex 3,172 3,172 12,860 12,860

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,595 1,595 7,975 7,975

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 2,755 2,755 13,772 13,772

NUWC Newport Testing Range 342 342 1,710 1,710

SFOMF 885 885 4,423 4,423

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 4,309 4,309 21,545 21,545

Total 18,658 18,658 90,285 90,285

1 Most of these items 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; SINKEX = Sinking Exercise

Table 3.0-31: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or 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 41 41 205 205

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 14 14 70 70

Jacksonville Range Complex 164 164 802 820

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 0 6 0 30

Other AFTT Areas 89 89 441 441

Total 392 398 1,938 1,986

Concrete Slugs

Virginia Capes Range Complex 14 14 70 70

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1 1 5 5

Jacksonville Range Complex 1 1 5 5

Key West Range Complex 6 6 30 30

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1 1 5 5

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-32) 6 6 30 30

Total 29 29 145 145
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-83

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-31: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Training Activities (continued) 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

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

Total 94,140 94,140 470,700 470,700

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

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

Total 218,252 218,252 1,091,260 1,091,260

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

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-32) 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Total 114,684 114,684 573,420 573,420
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-84

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-31: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Training Activities (continued)

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

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

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-32) 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 62 306 210

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1 1 5 5

Jacksonville Range Complex 2 2 6 10

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 22 22 106 110

Total 87 87 423 335

Expendable Bathythermographs

Northeast Range Complexes 139 142 695 708

Virginia Capes Range Complex 329 439 1,640 2,193

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 85 113 422 563

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,171 1,391 5,490 6,953

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 3 128 13 640

Other AFTT Areas 154 154 771 771

Total 1,880 2,365 9,031 11,828

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

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

Northeast Range Complexes 192 192 960 960

Virginia Capes Range Complex 10,196 10,196 50,980 50,980

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 332 332 1,660 1,660

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,263 1,263 6,315 6,315

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 303 303 1,515 1,515
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-85

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-31: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Training Activities (continued) 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Other AFTT Areas 24 24 120 120

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-32) 805 805 4,025 4,025

Total 13,115 13,115 65,575 65,575

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

Non-Explosive Sonobuoy

Northeast Range Complexes 3,132 3,132 15,660 15,660

Virginia Capes Range Complex 8,394 8,394 41,787 41,970

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,987 2,987 14,542 14,935

Jacksonville Range Complex 30,504 30,504 150,741 152,520

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 0 785 0 3,925

Other AFTT Areas 496 496 2,480 2,480

Total 45,513 46,298 225,210 231,490

Decelerators/Parachutes - Small

Northeast Range Complexes 3,128 3,128 15,640 15,640

Virginia Capes Range Complex 8,218 8,218 40,907 41,090

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,959 2,959 14,402 14,795

Jacksonville Range Complex 30,328 30,328 149,861 151,640

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 0 785 0 3,925

Other AFTT Areas 480 480 2,400 2,400

Total 45,113 45,898 223,210 229,490

Decelerators/Parachutes - Medium

Virginia Capes Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Jacksonville Range Complex 28 28 140 140

Total 36 36 180 180

Parachutes - Large

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

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-86

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-32: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Training Activities in Inland Waters 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Concrete Slugs

Lower Chesapeake Bay 6 6 30 30

Total 6 6 30 30

Flares

James River & Tributaries 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Total 20,400 20,400 102,000 102,000

Marine Markers

Narragansett, RI 65 65 325 325

James River & Tributaries 660 660 3,300 3,300

York River 20 20 100 100

Port Canaveral, FL 60 60 300 300

Total 805 805 4,025 4,025

Table 3.0-33: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or 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 842 842 4,210 4,210

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,038 1,038 5,190 5,190

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 764 764 3,820 3,820

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,331 1,331 6,651 6,651

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 836 836 4,180 4,180

NUWC Newport Testing Range 64 64 320 320

SFOMF 100 100 500 500

Total 4,975 4,975 24,871 24,871

Anchors

Northeast Range Complexes 3,600 3,600 18,000 18,000

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,800 1,800 9,000 9,000

Jacksonville Range Complex 101 101 501 501

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 1,923 1,923 9,614 9,614

NUWC Newport Testing Range 206 206 1,026 1,026

SFOMF 87 87 433 433

Total 7,717 7,717 38,574 38,574
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-87

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-33: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Testing Activities (continued) 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

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

Chaff – Ship Cartridge

Northeast Range Complexes 144 144 720 720

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,019 1,019 5,095 5,095

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 10,375 10,375

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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-88

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-33: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Testing Activities (continued) 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Fiber Optic Canister

Virginia Capes Range Complex 430 430 1,830 2,250

Jacksonville Range Complex 100 100 500 500

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 200 200 1,000 1,000

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 412 432 1,948 2,160

Total 1,142 1,162 5,278 5,910

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Expendable Bathythermographs

Northeast Range Complexes 1,835 1,835 7,171 7,171

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,019 1,019 5,065 5,095

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 315 315 1,575 1,575

Jacksonville Range Complex 637 637 3,155 3,185

Key West Range Complex 10 10 50 50

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 978 978 4,890 4,890

SFOMF 4 4 20 20

Total 4,798 4,798 23,926 23,986

Heavyweight Torpedo Accessories

Northeast Range Complexes 190 190 950 950

Virginia Capes Range Complex 220 220 1,100 1,100

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 52 52 260 260

Jacksonville Range Complex 234 234 1,170 1,170

Key West Range Complex 2 2 10 10

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 186 186 930 930

NUWC Newport Testing Range 60 60 300 300

SFOMF 34 34 170 170

Total 978 978 4,890 4,890

Lightweight Torpedo Accessories

Northeast Range Complexes 196 196 977 977

Virginia Capes Range Complex 409 409 1,799 2,042

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 120 120 597 597

Jacksonville Range Complex 497 497 2,413 2,482

Key West Range Complex 2 2 7 7

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 196 196 977 977

NUWC Newport Testing Range 60 60 300 300

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 252 252 1,260 1,260

Total 1,732 1,732 8,330 8,330

Non-Explosive Sonobuoy

Northeast Range Complexes 9,190 9,410 42,949 47,049
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-89

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-33: Number and Location of Other Military Materials Used or Expended During 

Testing Activities (continued) 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Virginia Capes Range Complex 8,678 8,758 39,659 40,039

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,558 2,638 12,579 13,189

Jacksonville Range Complex 6,344 6,744 30,669 33,719

Key West Range Complex 3,906 3,906 19,109 19,529

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 4,646 4,646 22,149 23,229

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 36,746 37,526 174,234 187,624

Decelerators/Parachutes – Small

Northeast Range Complexes 9,190 9,410 42,949 47,049

Virginia Capes Range Complex 8,678 8,758 39,659 40,039

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,558 2,638 12,579 13,189

Jacksonville Range Complex 6,344 6,744 30,669 33,719

Key West Range Complex 3,978 3,978 19,469 19,889

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 4,646 4,646 22,149 23,229

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 36,818 37,598 174,594 187,984

Decelerators/Parachutes - Medium

Northeast Range Complexes 33 33 165 165

Virginia Capes Range Complex 196 196 737 980

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 33 33 165 165

Jacksonville Range Complex 224 224 1,051 1,120

Key West Range Complex 1 1 5 5

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 33 33 165 165

Total 520 520 2,288 2,288

Sabots

Northeast Range Complexes 35,003 35,003 175,017 175,017

Virginia Capes Range Complex 35,003 35,003 175,017 175,017

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 35,003 35,003 175,017 175,017

Jacksonville Range Complex 35,003 35,003 175,017 175,017

Key West Range Complex 35,003 35,003 175,017 175,017

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 35,003 35,003 175,017 175,017

NUWC Newport Testing Range 383 383 1,912 1,912

Total 210,409 210,409 1,052,048 1,052,048

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-90

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). 

Table 3.0-34 shows the number and location of proposed activities that include the use of seafloor devices. 

Table 3.0-34: 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 7,052 7,052 35,256 35,256

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 1,365 1,365 6,825 6,825

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,374 1,374 6,860 6,870

Key West Range Complex 37 37 185 185

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 759 759 3,785 3,795

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 488 488 2,440 2,440

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-35) 1,052 1,052 5,200 5,260

Total 12,127 12,127 60,551 60,631

Testing

Northeast Range Complexes 28 28 138 138

Virginia Capes Range Complex 312 317 1,338 1,571

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 29 29 143 143

Jacksonville Range Complex 83 83 383 383

Key West Range Complex 1 1 3 3

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 75 75 376 376

NUWC Newport Testing Range 590 590 2,942 2,942

SFOMF 213 213 1,063 1,063

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 534 539 2,499 2,644

Other AFTT Areas 2 2 10 10

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-35) 2 2 10 10

Total 1,869 1,879 8,905 9,283

Notes: NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility; 

NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-91

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-35: Number and Location of Activities in Inland 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 2 2 6 10

Narragansett, RI 185 185 925 925

Earle, NJ 2 2 6 10

Wilmington, DE 2 2 6 10

Delaware Bay, DE 2 2 6 10

Hampton Roads, VA 4 4 12 20

Lower Chesapeake Bay 490 490 2,450 2,450

James Rivers & Tributaries 198 198 990 990

York River 45 45 225 225

Morehead City, NC 2 2 6 10

Cooper River, SC 60 60 300 300

Savannah, GA 2 2 6 10

Kings Bay, GA 2 2 6 10

Mayport, FL 46 46 226 230

Port Canaveral, FL 2 2 6 10

Tampa, FL 2 2 6 10

Beaumont, TX 4 4 12 20

Corpus Christi, TX 2 2 6 10

Total 1,052 1,052 5,200 5,260

Testing

Little Creek, VA 1 1 5 5

Norfolk, VA 1 1 5 5

Total 2 2 10 10

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) tilt-rotor 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 tilt-rotor 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 Unmanned Combat Air System. Aircraft strikes are only 

applicable to birds. Table 3.0-36 shows the number and location of proposed activities that include the 

use of aircraft. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-92

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-36: 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 16,586 16,583 80,957 80,965

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 17,008 17,008 85,023 85,035

Jacksonville Range Complex 19,115 19,115 95,555 95,575

Key West Range Complex 29,908 29,908 149,540 149,540

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 752 758 3,758 3,790

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 244 244 1,220 1,220

Other AFTT Areas 24 24 120 120

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-37) 1,501 1,501 7,485 7,515

Total 85,230 85,233 424,118 424,220

Testing

Northeast Range Complexes 738 741 3,403 3,703

Virginia Capes Range Complex 3,343 3,349 15,568 16,623

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 608 609 3,035 3,043

Jacksonville Range Complex 871 876 4,069 4,314

Key West Range Complex 240 240 1,072 1,198

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 139 139 610 677

NUWC Newport Testing Range 18 18 86 86

SFOMF 34 34 170 170

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 227 232 1,041 1,158

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-37) 4 4 16 16

Total 5,995 6,010 28,029 29,830

Notes: NUWC = Naval Undersea Warfare Center; SFOMF = South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility; 

NSWC = Naval Surface Warfare Center

Table 3.0-37: Number and Location of Activities in Inland 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 5

Earle, NJ 1 1 3 5

Wilmington, DE 1 1 3 5

Delaware Bay, DE 1 1 3 5

Hampton Roads, VA 2 2 6 10

Lower Chesapeake Bay 68 68 340 340

James Rivers & Tributaries 720 720 3,660 3,660

York River 4 4 20 20
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-93

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-37: Number and Location of Activities in Inland 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 5

Savannah, GA 1 1 3 5

Kings Bay, GA 481 481 2,403 2,405

Mayport, FL 165 165 773 775

Port Canaveral, FL 1 1 3 5

Tampa, FL 1 1 3 5

St. Andrews Bay, FL 50 50 250 250

Beaumont, TX 2 2 6 10

Corpus Christi, TX 1 1 3 5

Total 1,501 1,501 7,485 7,515

Testing

Little Creek, VA 2 2 8 8

Norfolk, VA 2 2 8 8

Total 4 4 16 16

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. Unlike typical fishing nets and 

lines, the Navy’s equipment, other than biodegradable polymer, is not designed for trapping or 

entanglement purposes. 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. 

3.0.3.3.5.1 Wires and Cables 

Fiber Optic Cables 

Fiber optic cables are expended during Navy training and testing associated with remotely operated 

mine neutralization activities. The length of the cable varies (up to about 3,000 m). The physical 

properties of the fiber optic cable would not allow the cable to loop before it breaks. Fiber optic cables 

are somewhat flexible, durable, and abrasion or chemical-resistant. The physical characteristics of the 

fiber optic material render the cable easily broken when kinked, twisted, or bent sharply. The cables are 

often designed with controlled buoyancy to minimize the cable's effect on vehicle movement. The fiber 

optic cable would be suspended within the water column during the activity, and then be expended to 

sink to the seafloor. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-94

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 42 lb. and can be broken by hand (Environmental Sciences Group, 

2005) which minimizes the potential for entanglement of marine animals (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2008), 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.” The relatively low breaking strength and 

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 saltwateractivated 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. 

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. 

Table 3.0-38 and Table 3.0-39 show the number and location of wires and cables expended during 

proposed training and testing activities. 

Table 3.0-38: 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 762 762 3,806 3,810

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 88 88 440 440

Jacksonville Range Complex 165 165 821 825

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 154 154 766 770

Total 1,169 1,169 5,833 5,845
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-95

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-38: Number and Location of Wires and Cables Expended During Training Activities 

(continued) 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of 

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

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 3,128 3,128 15,640 15,640

Virginia Capes Range Complex 8,218 8,218 40,907 41,090

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,959 2,959 14,402 14,795

Jacksonville Range Complex 30,328 30,328 149,861 151,640

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 0 785 0 3,925

SINKEX Area 480 480 2,400 2,400

Total 45,113 45,898 223,210 229,490

Expendable Bathythermograph Wires

Northeast Range Complexes 139 142 695 708

Virginia Capes Range Complex 329 439 1,640 2,193

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 85 113 422 563

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,171 1,391 5,490 6,953

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 3 128 13 640

Other AFTT Areas 155 155 771 771

Total 1,882 2,368 9,031 11,828

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 3.0-39: 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 430 450 1,830 2,250

Jacksonville Range Complex 100 100 500 500

Key West Range Complex 200 200 1,000 1,000

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 412 432 1,948 2,160

Total 1,142 1,182 5,278 5,910
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-96

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-39: Number and Location of Wires and Cables Expended During Testing Activities 

(continued) 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of

Materials 5-Year # of Materials

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Guidance Wires

Northeast Range Complexes 190 190 950 950

Virginia Capes Range Complex 220 220 1,100 1,100

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 52 52 260 260

Jacksonville Range Complex 234 234 1,170 1,170

Key West Range Complex 2 2 10 10

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 186 186 930 930

NUWC Newport Testing Range 60 60 300 300

SFOMF 34 34 170 170

Total 978 978 4,890 4,890

Sonobuoy Wires

Northeast Range Complexes 9,290 9,410 42,949 47,049

Virginia Capes Range Complex 8,678 8,758 39,659 43,789

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 2,558 2,638 12,579 13,189

Jacksonville Range Complex 6,344 6,744 30,669 33,719

Key West Range Complex 3,978 3,978 19,469 19,889

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 4,646 4,646 22,149 23,229

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 36,918 37,598 174,594 187,984

Expendable Bathythermograph Wires

Northeast Range Complexes 1,835 1,835 9,171 9,171

Virginia Capes Range Complex 1,019 1,019 5,065 5,095

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 315 315 1,575 1,575

Jacksonville Range Complex 637 637 3,155 3,185

Key West Range Complex 10 10 50 50

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 978 978 4,890 4,890

SFOMF 4 4 20 20

Total 4,798 4,798 23,926 23,986

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

3.0.3.3.5.2 Decelerators/Parachutes 

Aircraft-launched sonobuoys and lightweight torpedoes (such as the MK 46 and MK 54) use nylon 

decelerators/parachutes ranging in size from 18 in. (small) to 48 in. (medium) in diameter. The majority 

are relatively small (18 in.) cruciform shape decelerators/parachutes associated with sonobuoys (Figure 

3.0-13). Illumination flares and targets use large decelerators/parachutes, up to approximately 19 ft. in 

diameter. Decelerators/parachutes are made of cloth and nylon, many with weights attached to their 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-97

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 it 

becomes flattened (Environmental Sciences Group, 2005). Once settled on the bottom the canopy may 

temporarily billow if bottom currents are present. Table 3.0-31 and Table 3.0-32.

Table 3.0-33 show the number and location of decelerator/parachutes expended during proposed 

training and testing activities. 

Figure 3.0-13: Sonobuoy Launch Depicting the Relative Size of a Parachute 

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. 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 will breakdown into small pieces 

within a few days to weeks. This will breakdown further and dissolve into the water column within 

weeks to a few months. The final products which are all environmentally benign will be dispersed 

quickly to undetectable concentrations. Degradation and dispersal timelines are influenced by water 

temperature, currents, and other oceanographic features. Overall, the longer the polymer remains in 

the water, the weaker it becomes making it more brittle and likely to break. 

Biodegradable polymers will be used only during proposed testing activities, not during training 

activities. Table 3.0-40 shows the number and location of proposed testing activities that use 

biodegradable polymer. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-98

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-40: Activities Including Biodegradable Polymers During Testing Activities 

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: nonexplosive 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 

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 3.0-23 and Table 3.0-25 show the 

number and location of non-explosive practice munitions used during proposed training and testing 

activities. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-99

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 

3.0-26 and Table 3.0-27 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 3.0-41 and Table 3.0-42 show the number and location of targets used during proposed 

training and testing activities that may result in fragments. 

Table 3.0-41: 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 4 4 20 20

Virginia Capes Range Complex 78 78 390 390

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 85 85 425 425

Jacksonville Range Complex 65 65 325 325

Key West Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Total 248 248 1,240 1,240

Surface Targets

Northeast Range Complexes 2 2 10 10
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-100 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-41: 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

Virginia Capes Range Complex 3,876 3,876 6,095 6,095

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 598 598 2,990 2,990

Jacksonville Range Complex 775 775 3,875 3,875

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 51 51 255 255

Other AFTT Areas 3 3 15 15

Total 5,305 5,305 13,240 13,240

Subsurface Targets

Northeast Range Complexes 100 102 498 510

Virginia Capes Range Complex 291 401 1,455 2,055

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 81 108 403 540

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,108 1,328 5,540 6,640

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 3 5 12 25

Other AFTT Areas 178 178 891 891

Total 1,761 2,122 8,799 10,661

Mine Shapes

Virginia Capes Range Complex 292 292 1,456 1,460

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 24 24 120 120

Jacksonville Range Complex 60 60 292 300

Key West Range Complex 8 8 40 40

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 60 60 292 300

Inland Waters (see Table 3.0-42) 60 60 204 340

Total 504 504 2,584 2,860

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing

Table 3.0-42: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities in Inland 

Waters That May Result in Fragments 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Mine Shapes

Boston, MA 4 4 12 20

Earle, NJ 4 4 12 20

Delaware Bay, DE 4 4 12 20

Hampton Roads, VA 8 8 24 40

Morehead City, NC 8 8 24 40

Wilmington, NC 4 4 12 20

Savannah, GA 4 4 12 20

Kings Bay, GA 4 4 12 20
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-101 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-42: Number and Location of Targets Expended During Training Activities in Inland 

Waters That May Result in Fragments (continued) 

Activity Area

Maximum Annual # of Targets 5-Year # of Targets

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Mayport, FL 4 4 12 20

Port Canaveral, FL 8 8 24 40

Tampa, FL 4 4 12 20

Beaumont, TX 8 8 24 40

Corpus Christi, TX 4 4 12 20

Total 68 68 204 340

Table 3.0-43: 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 60 60 300 300

Virginia Capes Range Complex 60 60 300 300

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 60 60 300 300

Jacksonville Range Complex 60 60 300 300

Key West Range Complex 60 60 300 300

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 70 70 350 350

Total 370 370 1,850 1,850

Air Targets – Drones

Northeast Range Complexes 6 6 28 28

Virginia Capes Range Complex 480 480 2,398 2,398

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 6 6 28 28

Jacksonville Range Complex 174 174 868 868

Key West Range Complex 6 6 28 28

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 6 6 28 28

NUWC Newport Testing Range 6 6 28 28

SFOMF 6 6 28 28

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 6 6 28 28

Total 696 696 3,462 3,462

Surface Targets

Northeast Range Complexes 174 174 861 861

Virginia Capes Range Complex 462 462 2,213 2,306

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex 171 171 861 861

Jacksonville Range Complex 290 290 1,317 1,445

Key West Range Complex 173 173 861 861

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 121 121 881 911
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-102 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-43: 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

NUWC Newport Testing Range 253 253 62 62

SFOMF 13 13 62 62

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 13 13 62 62

Total 1,670 1,670 7,180 7,431

Subsurface Targets

Northeast Range Complexes 100 100 500 500

Virginia Capes Range Complex 105 105 525 525

Jacksonville Range Complex 265 265 1,325 1,325

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 100 100 500 500

NUWC Newport Testing Range 240 240 1,200 1,200

Total 810 810 4,050 4,050

Mine Shapes

Northeast Range Complexes 5,600 5,600 28,000 28,000

Virginia Capes Range Complex 3,172 3,172 15,860 15,860

Jacksonville Range Complex 1,595 1,595 7,975 7,975

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 2,755 2,755 13,772 13,772

NUWC Newport Testing Range 342 342 1,710 1,710

SFOMF 885 885 4,423 4,423

NSWC Panama City Testing Range 4,309 4,309 21,545 21,545

Total 18,658 18,658 93,285 93,285

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 mask the position of the ship or aircraft. Chaff is composed of an aluminum alloy coating on glass 

fibers of silicon dioxide (U.S. Department of the 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. Department of the 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-103 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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; Hullar et al., 1999; U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). 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 

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. Department of the 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. Department of the 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), Hullar et al. (1999), and U.S. Department of the 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 (Hullar et al., 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. Department of the 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 3.0-31 and Table 3.0-33 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. Department of the Air 

Force, 1997). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-104 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.0-31 and Table 3.0-33 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- and medium-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 3.0-31 and Table 3.0-33 show the number and location of small- and medium-size 

decelerators/parachutes expended during proposed training and testing activities. 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-105 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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). In some ways, this analysis is similar to the cumulative impacts analysis described 

below, but it only considers the activities in the alternatives and not other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. This step helps inform the cumulative impacts analysis and make overall 

impact conclusions for each resource. 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-106 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 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 result when individual 

actions combine with similar actions taking place over a period of time to produce conditions that 

frequently alter the historical baseline (40 Code of Federal Regulations section 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 

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 

3.1.1.1 (Methods), 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 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 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-107 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 3.0-14 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. 

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 are predicted 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, longduration, 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). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.0-108 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-109 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.0-14: Flow Chart of the Evaluation Process of Sound-Producing Activities 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-110 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-111 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. 

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 et al., 2005; Crum & Mao, 1996); 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-112 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 permanent threshold shift (PTS), or temporary threshold shift (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 3.0-15shows one hypothetical threshold shift that 

completely recovers, a TTS, and one that does not completely recover, leaving some PTS. 

Notes: PTS = Permanent Threshold Shift, TS = Threshold Shift, TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift 

Figure 3.0-15: 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-113 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 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 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-114 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 

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, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-115 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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). 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-116 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-117 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 

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 Normandeau et al. (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). Highenergy 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 (Swope, 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-118 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. 

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 (Normandeau et al., 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 Normandeau et al. (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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-119 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-120 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-121 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-122 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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; 

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, explosion 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-123 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-124 

3.0 Affected Environment and 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-125 

3.0 References

References 

Aquarone, M. C. (2009). XV-51 Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf TAG: LME #6. In K. Sherman & G. 

Hempel (Eds.), The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions 

in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas (pp. 689–697). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations 

Environmental Programme. 

Aquarone, M. C., & S. Adams. (2009a). XIX-59 Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf. In K. Sherman & G. Hempel 

(Eds.), The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs 

of the World's Regional Seas (pp. 787–794). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment 

Programme. 

Aquarone, M. C., & S. Adams. (2009b). XIX-60 Scotian Shelf TAG: LME #8. In K. Sherman & G. Hempel 

(Eds.), The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs 

of the World’s Regional Seas (pp. 795–803). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental 

Programme. 

Aquarone, M. C., & S. Adams. (2009c). XIX-61 Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf TAG: LME #7. In K. 

Sherman & G. Hempel (Eds.), The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on 

Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas (pp. 805–815). Nairobi, Kenya: United 

Nations Environmental Programme. 

Aquarone, M. C., S. Adams, D. Mikkelson, & T. J. Pedersen. (2009). XIX-58 West Greenland Shelf: LME 

#18. In K. Sherman & G. Hempel (Eds.), The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A Perspective 

on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas (pp. 778–786). Nairobi, Kenya: 

United Nations Environmental Programme. 

Arfsten, D., C. Wilson, & B. 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., & 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, & 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. W., D. L. Webster, S. Watwood, R. Morrissey, B. K. Rone, S. D. Mahaffy, A. M. Gorgone, D. B. 

Anderson, & D. J. Moretti. (2016). Final Report: Odontocete Studies on the Pacific Missile Range 

Facility in February 2015: Satellite-Tagging, Photo-Identification, and Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring. In U. S. P. F. Commander (Ed.), Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific under 

HDR Environmental, Operations and Construction, Inc. Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, CTO 

KB28. Olympia, WA: HDR Inc. 

Ballard, R. D., & 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, & W. M. Swingle. (2009). Characterizing Large 

Vessel Traffic in the Chesapeake Bay Ocean approach using AIS and RADAR VAQF Scientific 

Report (pp. 42). Virginia Beach, VA. 

Bergmann, M., L. Gutow, & M. Klages. (2015). Marine Anthropogenic Litter 

Berlett, B. S., & E. R. Stadtman. (1997). Protein oxidation in aging, disease, and oxidative stress. The 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-126 

3.0 References

Journal of Biological Chemistry, 272(33), 20313–20316. 

Blanton, B. O., A. Aretxabaleta, F. E. Werner, & 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, & 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., & R. M. Kufeld. (2005). UH-60A Airloads Catalog: National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

Courbis, S., & 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, **(**), 1–11. 

Crum, L. A., M. R. Bailey, J. Guan, P. R. Hilmo, S. G. Kargl, & T. J. 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. 

Crum, L. A., & Y. Mao. (1996). Acoustically enhanced bubble growth at low frequencies and its 

implications for human diver and marine mammal safety. Acoustical Society of America, 99(5), 

2898–2907. 

Dengler, M., F. A. Schott, C. Eden, P. Brandt, J. Fischer, & R. J. Zantopp. (2004). Break-up of the Atlantic 

deep western boundary current into eddies at 8oS. Nature, 432, 1018–1020. 

Dickson, R. R., & J. Brown. (1994). The production of North Atlantic Deep Water: Sources, rates, and 

pathways. Journal of Geophysical Research, 99(C6), 12319–12341. 

Duda, A. M., & K. Sherman. (2002). A new imperative for improving management of large marine 

ecosystems. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45(11–12), 797–833. 

Eller, A. I., & R. C. Cavanagh. (2000). Subsonic Aircraft Noise At and Beneath the Ocean Surface: 

Estimation of Risk for Effects on Marine Mammals (pp. 85): United States Air Force Research 

Laboratory. 

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 

(CFMETR) Environmental Assessment Update 2005 (pp. 652). Kingston, Ontario: Environmental 

Sciences Group, Royal Military College. 

Escobar-Briones, E. G., C. Díaz, & P. Legendre. (2008). Meiofaunal community structure of the deep-sea 

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, & 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, & J. Trial. (2006). Status 

Review for Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the United States (N. M. F. Service, 

Trans.) (pp. 294): National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-127 

3.0 References

Fiechter, J., & C. N. K. Mooers. (2003). Simulation of frontal eddies on the East Florida Shelf. Geophysical 

Research Letters, 30(22), 2151. 

Finneran, J. J., & A. K. Jenkins. (2012). Criteria and Thresholds for Navy Acoustic Effects Analysis 

Technical Report: SPAWAR Marine Mammal Program. 

Frisk, G. V. (2012). Noiseonomics: The relationship between ambient noise levels in the sea and global 

economic trends. Scientific Reports, 2(437). 

Gallaway, B. J., J. G. Cole, & L. R. Martin. (2001). The Deep Sea Gulf of Mexico: An Overview and Guide. 

(OCS Study MMS 2001-065). New Orleans, LA: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. 

Garrison, T. (1998). Oceanography Thomson 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., & 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. 

Heileman, S., & R. Mahon. (2008). XV-49 Caribbean Sea: TAG: LME #12. In K. Sherman & G. Hempel 

(Eds.), The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs 

of the World’s Regional Seas (pp. 657–671). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental 

Programme. 

Heileman, S., & N. Rabalais. (2008). XV-50 Gulf of Mexico: TAG: LME #5. In K. Sherman & G. Hempel 

(Eds.), The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs 

of the World’s Regional Seas (pp. 683–687). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental 

Programme. 

Henderson, D., E. C. Bielefeld, K. C. Harris, & 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, & S. Levine. (1979). Plasma corticosterone concentrations 

sensitively reflect levels of stimulus intensity in the rat. Physiology and Behavior, 22, 821–825. 

Hildebrand, J. A. (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, & 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. 

Huang, G. H., & R. Tiedemann. (1998). Effect of the formation of the Isthmus of Panama on Atlantic 

Ocean thermohaline circulation. Nature, 393, 673–676. 

Hullar, T. L., S. L. Fales, H. F. Hemond, P. Koutrakis, W. H. Schlesinger, R. R. Sobonya, J. M. Teal, & J. G. 

Watson. (1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff A Select Panel Report to the Undersecretary 

of Defense for Environmental Security (pp. 84): U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Research 

Laboratory. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-128 

3.0 References

Hunt, R. E., D. J. P. Swift, & 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, & J. Kohut. (2007). Spatial and temporal variability of diurnal 

wind forcing in the coastal ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(3), L03607. 

Illingworth and Rodkin. (2015). Underwater and airborne acoustic monitoring for the U.S. Navy Elevated 

Causeway (ELCAS) removal at the JEB Little Creek Naval Station: 10–11 September 2015. 

Illingworth and Rodkin. (2016). Navy Pile Driving Report - in press. 

Juliano, M. F., & 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. 

Karlsson, S., & A. C. Albertsson. (1998). Biodegradable Polymers and Environmental Interaction. Polymer 

Engineering and Science, 38(8), 1251–1253. 

Knebel, H. J. (1984). Sedimentary processes on the Atlantic Continental Slope of the United States. 

Marine Geology, 61(1), 43–74. 

Kujawa, S. G., & M. C. Liberman. (2009). Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after 

"temporary" noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci, 29(45), 14077–14085. 

Laney, H., & R. C. Cavanagh. (2000). Supersonic Aircraft Noise At and Beneath the Ocean Surface: 

Estimation of Risk for Effects on Marine Mammals (pp. 46): United States Air Force Research 

Laboratory. 

Lee, T. N., C. Rooth, E. Williams, M. McGowan, A. F. Szmant, & 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, & D. Bamford. (2009). Coastal 

and Marine Ecological Classification Standard—Version III: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration and NatureServe. 

Mann, K. H., & J. R. N. Lazier. (1996). Dynamics of Marine Ecosystems: Biological-Physical Interactions in 

the Oceans (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 

McKenna, M. F., D. Ross, S. M. Wiggins, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2012). Underwater radiated noise from 

modern commercial ships. The Journal of 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. 

Mintz, J. D. (2012a). Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii-Southern California and Atlantic Fleet Testing and 

Training Study Areas. (CRM D0026186.A2/Final). Center for Naval Analysis. 

Mintz, J. D. (2012b). Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii-Southern California and Atlantic Fleet Tresting and 

Training Study Areas (pp. 44): Defense Technical Information Center. 

Mintz, J. D., & R. J. Filadelfo. (2011). Exposure of Marine Mammals to Broadband Radiated Noise. In CNA 

Analysis & Solutions (Ed.), Specific Authority N0001-4-05-D-0500 (pp. 42). 

Mintz, J. D., & C. L. Parker. (2006). Vessel Traffic and Speed Around the U.S. Coasts and Around Hawaii 

(pp. 48). Alexandria, VA: CNA Corporation. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-129 

3.0 References

Mulsow, J., C. E. Schlundt, L. Brandt, & J. J. Finneran. (2015). Equal latency contours for bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 138(5), 2678. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2008). Biological Opinion for the 2008 Rim-of-the-Pacific Joint 

Training Exercises. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 

Endangered Species Division. 

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. 

Normandeau, E., T. Tricas, & A. Gill. (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 Outer Continental 

Shelf Region. 

Oertel, G. F. (1985). The barrier island system. Marine Geology, 63(1–4), 1–18. 

Pater, L. L. (1981). Gun Blast Far Field Peak Overpressure Contours. Naval Surface Weapons Center. 

Pequegnat, W. E., B. J. Gallaway, & L. H. Pequegnat. (1990). Aspects of the ecology of the deep-water 

fauna of the Gulf of Mexico. American Zoologist, 30(1), 45–64. 

Pickard, G. L., & 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., & 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, & W. N. 

Tavolga. (2014). Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles. 

Purdy, R. (2016). Kauai’s First Documented Green Sea Turtle Nest of 2016 Hatches Sixty-three Hatchlings 

Emerge from Pacific Missile Range Facility. Currents. 

Reed, J. K., & 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., & 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., & P. H. Dahl. (2011). Underwater Mach wave radiation from impact pile driving: Theory 

and observation. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 130(3), 1209–1216. 

Reverdin, G., P. P. Niiler, & H. Valdimarsson. (2003). North Atlantic Ocean surface currents. Journal of 

Geophysical Research, 108(C1), 3002. 

Rice, A. C., S. Baumann-Pickering, A. Širović, J. A. Hildebrand, A. M. Brewer, A. J. Debich, S. T. Herbert, B. 

J. Thayre, J. S. Trickey, & S. M. Wiggins. (2015). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-130 

3.0 References

Mammals in the Gulf of Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities Area 2014–2015. (W9126G-14-2-

0040). 

Richardson, W. J., C. R. Greene, Jr., C. I. Malme, & D. H. Thomson. (1995). Marine Mammals and Noise. 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

Roberts, H. H., J. M. Coleman, & R. H. Peele. (2005). Mapping Areas of Hard Bottom and Other Important 

Bottom Types: Outer Continental Shelf and Upper Continental Slope (pp. 45). Baton Rouge, LA: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer 

Continental Shelf Region. 

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. 

Rowe, G. T., & M. C. Kennicutt, II. (2002). Deepwater Program: Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental 

Slope Habitat and Benthic Ecology (pp. 158). New Orleans, Louisiana.: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region. 

Ryan, J. P., J. A. Yoder, & 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, & 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., & M. S. McCartney. (1993). On the North Atlantic Circulation. Reviews of Geophysics, 

31(1), 29–49. 

Shepard, A. N. (2005). South Atlantic Bight: Bitten By Worsening Problems.: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

Sherman, K., & G. Hempel. (2009). Perspectives on Regional Seas and the Large Marine Ecosystem 

Approach. In. In K. Sherman & G. Hempel (Eds.), The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A 

Perspective on Changing Conditions in LME's of the World's Regional Seas (pp. 3-22). Nairobi, 

Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme. 

Sies, H. (1997). Physiological society symposium: Impaired endothelial and smooth muscle cell function 

in oxidative stress: Oxidants and antioxidants. Experimental Physiology, 82, 291–295. 

Slabbekoorn, H., & E. A. Ripmeester. (2007). Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and 

applications for conservation. Mol Ecol, 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, & S. C. Webb. (2000). Field measurements of sonic boom 

penetration into the ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(6), 3073–3083. 

Spargo, B. J. (2007, June 1, 2007). [Chaff end cap and piston bouyancy]. 

Sparrow, V. W. (2002). Review and status of sonic boom penetration into the ocean. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 111(1), 537–543. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-131 

3.0 References

St. Aubin, D. J., & 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. 

Swisdak, M. M. (1975). Explosion Effects and Properties Part I – Explosion Effects in Air. Silver Spring, 

MD: White Oak Laboratory, Naval Surface Weapons Center. 

Swope, B. (2010). Laser System Usage in the Marine Environment: Applications and Environmental 

Considerations (pp. 42): SPAWAR Systems Center PACIFIC. 

Swope, B., & J. McDonald. (2013). Copper-Based Torpedo Guidance Wire: Applications and 

Environmental Considerations. San Diego, CA. 

Talwani, M., C. C. Windisch, & M. G. Langseth, Jr. (1971). Reykjane 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 (pp. 96). 

Thompson, S. A., W. J. Sydeman, J. A. Santora, B. A. Black, R. M. Suryan, J. Calambokidis, W. T. Peterson, 

& 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., & J. S. Godfrey. (2003). The Atlantic Ocean Regional Oceanography: An Introduction (2nd 

ed.): 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. Department of the Air Force. (1997). Environmental effects of self-protection chaff and flares (pp. 

241). Langley Air Force Base, VA: U.S. Department of the Air Force. 

U.S. Department of the Air Force. (2016). United States Air Force F-35A Operational Beddown - Pacific 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

U.S. Department of the Army. (1999). Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Life Cycle 

Environmental Assessment (LCEA) for the HELLFIRE Modular Missile System. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2000). Noise Blast Test Results Aboard the USS Cole. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2001). Sonic Boom Parametric Study: Applied Ordnance Technology, Inc., 

and Operational Environmental Planning Office, Naval Air Station Patuxent River. 

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. (2009a). NATOPS General Flight and Operating Instructions; OPNAV 

Instruction 3710.7U. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2009b). VACAPES Range Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. 

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. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012b). Ecosystem Technical Report for the Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing (AFTT) Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.0-132 

3.0 References

Atlantic Division, Retrieved from https://aftteis.com/default.aspx. 

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. 

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. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2016). Building and Maintaining a Comprehensive Database and 

Prioritization Scheme for Overlapping Habitat Data. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017a). Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Space and Naval Warfare System Command, 

Pacific. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017b). Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Space and Naval Warfare System Command, 

Pacific and Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017c). U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database Phase III for the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area NAVFAC Atlantic Technical Report (Vol. Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, pp. 277). Norfolk, VA. 

U.S. Department of the Navy, & 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. 

U.S. Naval Research Advisory Committee. (2009). Report on Jet Engine Noise Reduction (pp. 1–69). 

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 (GOODS)—Biogeographic Classification (pp. 82–95). Paris, France: UNESCO - IOC. 

Urick, R. J. (1983). Principles of Underwater Sound, Principles of Underwater Sound for Engineers (3rd 

ed.). Los Altos Hills, CA: Peninsula Publishing.

Valiela, I. (1995). Marine Ecological Processes (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 

Verity, P., L. N., J. Yoder, G. Paffenhofer, J. R. J. Blanton, & 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, & R. A. Fensome. (1996). The Triassic-Jurassic Fundy Basin, eastern 

Canada: Regional setting, stratigraphy and hydrocarbon potential. Atlantic Geology, 32, 189–

231. 

Yagla, J., & R. Stiegler. (2003). Gun blast noise transmission across the air-sea interface. Paper presented 

at the euronoise, Naples, FL. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

i 

Table of Contents

Draft 

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 ............................................................................. 3.1-8

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 ....................................................................................... 3.1-12

3.1.2.1 General Background ......................................................................... 3.1-12

3.1.2.2 Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................... 3.1-13

3.1.2.3 Existing Air Quality ............................................................................ 3.1-16

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.1-22

3.1.3.1 Criteria Air Pollutants ........................................................................ 3.1-22

3.1.3.2 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ........................................... 3.1-28

3.1.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Air Quality .................................................. 3.1-28

3.1.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1 ................... 3.1-29

3.1.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2 ................... 3.1-29

3.1.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative ........................................................................................ 3.1-29

List of Figures 

Figure 3.1-1: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 1 and 2 ............... 3.1-18

Figure 3.1-2: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 3 ......................... 3.1-19

Figure 3.1-3: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 4 ......................... 3.1-20

Figure 3.1-4: Applicable Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas in USEPA Region 6 ......................... 3.1-21
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 ..................................................... 3.1-6

Table 3.1-3: Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas Adjacent to Study Area .................................... 3.1-16

Table 3.1-4: Pierside and Coastal Activity Locations and Their Area’s Attainment Status................... 3.1-17

Table 3.1-5: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within the 

AFTT Study Area, Alternative 1 ........................................................................................ 3.1-23

Table 3.1-6: Estimated Net Change 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 ........................................................................................ 3.1-26

Table 3.1-8: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within 3 NM 

of shore in the Jacksonville, Florida Area, Alternative 2.................................................. 3.1-27

Table 3.1-9: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions from All Study Area Training and Testing 

Activities ........................................................................................................................... 3.1-28
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 

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

the Preferred Alternative:

 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 in a localized area not located near any publicly accessible areas. 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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/m31) 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 ppb4 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 EPA, 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. 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-5 

3.1 Air Quality

shoreline to 3 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 inland 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. 

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 EIS/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 to determine 

and document whether a proposed action complies with the General Conformity Rule. If a federal action 

is not an emergency response action, presumed to conform under the Rule, does not meet the 

approved facility emissions budget, is not a listed exempt activity, and is not covered by the 

Transportation Conformity Rule, then a conformity demonstration evaluating total direct and indirect 

emissions must be made. In determining the total direct and indirect emissions caused by the action, 

agencies must project the future emissions in the area with the action versus the future emissions 

without the action, what the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) entitles “the no build option.” 

The total direct and indirect emissions considers all emission increases and decreases and must 

be reasonably foreseeable at the time that the conformity evaluation is conducted and are possibly 

controllable through agency's continuing program responsibility to affect emissions. 

The first step in the demonstration is a Conformity Applicability Analysis and involves calculating the 

non-exempt direct and indirect emissions associated with the action. The emissions thresholds that 

trigger the conformity requirements are called de minimis levels. The total emissions calculated for the 

direct and indirect emissions are then compared to the air emissions that for direct and indirect 

emissions do not exceed the de minimis levels, then a General Conformity Determination is not 

required. If the net change emissions equal or exceed the de minimis conformity applicability 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, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-6 

3.1 Air Quality

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). 

Compliance is presumed if the net change in emissions resulting from a proposed federal action would 

be less than the relevant de minimis threshold. If the net change in emissions exceeds the de minimis 

thresholds, then a formal conformity determination must be prepared. De minimis levels are shown in 

Table 3.1-2. Note that de minimis levels for ozone precursors may be lower where nonattainment is a 

serious issue in the ozone transport region. This 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. 

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: (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010a) 

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 Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) training or testing activities and are further 

discussed in Section 3.1.2.3, Existing Air Quality. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-7 

3.1 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 inland locations are assessed 

under NEPA. Impacts of air pollutants emitted by Navy training and testing activities outside state 

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, 2007, 2008, 2009). 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 GHGs associated with testing and training activity flights above 3,000 ft. For this reason, 

the GHG 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. 

Emission Sources 

Criteria air pollutants are generated by the combustion of fuel by surface vessels and by fixed-wing and 

rotary-wing aircraft. They also are 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, 2007, 

2008, 2009). 

Electronic warfare countermeasures generate emissions of chaff, a form of particulate not regulated 

under the federal Clean Air Act as a criteria air pollutant. Virtually all radio frequency chaff is 10 to 100 

times larger than particulate matter under particle matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

and particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (Spargo et al., 1999). The types of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-8 

3.1 Air Quality

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. 

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 NEPA analysis includes 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, 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-9 

3.1 Air Quality

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 Example Emissions Calculations). 

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 

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 2.3-4 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. For Alternative 2, the 

year with the highest number of operational hours (2011) was selected as the year to represent 

maximum operations. For both alternatives, the hourly data was used with data from the Naval Sea 

Systems Command 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-10

3.1 Air Quality

the calculator included emission factors for each type of propulsion and type of onboard generator by

ship type, as well as the fuel used. 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 assignments. Where there are no major changes in types of ships, estimates of 

future activities are based on the historical distribution of ship activities. Emission factors for military 

ships were obtained from the Naval Sea Systems Command database, Navy and Military Sea Lift Marine 

Engine Fuel Consumption and Emissions Calculator. Emission factors were provided for each marine 

vessel type and the applicable power levels. 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. 

Boat emissions were estimated based on activity data provided by the Navy, which included the type 

and number of boats, locations, and total number of hours running. Emissions factor data came from 

the Navy or from USEPA documentation on nonroad engines (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2010b).The pollutants for which calculations are made include exhaust total hydrocarbons, carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. For non-road engines, 

100 percent of all of the particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter from gasoline 

and diesel-fueled engines is assumed to be particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in 

diameter (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010b). For gaseous-fueled engines (liquefied 

petroleum gas/compressed natural gas), 100 percent of the particulate matter emissions are assumed to 

be particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2010b). 

The emissions calculations performed for each alternative conservatively assume that each vessel 

training and testing activity listed in Chapter 2, Tables 2.3-1 to 2.3-4, is separately conducted and 

separately produces vessel emissions. In practice, one or more testing activities may take advantage of 

an opportunity to travel at sea and test aboard a vessel conducting a related or unrelated training 

activity. It is also probable that two or more training activities may be conducted during one training 

vessel movement (e.g., a ship may conduct large-, medium-, and small-caliber surface-to-surface 

gunnery exercises during one vessel movement). Furthermore, multiple unit-level training activities may 

be conducted during a larger composite training unit exercise. Conservative assumptions may produce 

elevated vessel emissions calculations but account for the possibility, however remote, that each 

training and testing activity is separately conducted. 

3.1.1.4.3 Submarine Activities 

No U.S. submarines burn fossil fuel under normal operating conditions. Therefore, no air pollutants are 

emitted during submarine training or testing activities. 

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 its 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, 2007, 2008, 2009) for criteria air 

pollutants are applied to the total amounts. Finally, the total amounts of air pollutants emitted by each 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-11

3.1 Air Quality

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 probable cause of the global warming observed over the last 50 years (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2009a). Global warming and climate change affect many aspects of 

the environment. Not all effects of greenhouse gases are related to climate. For example, elevated 

concentrations of carbon dioxide can lead to ocean acidification and stimulate terrestrial plant growth, 

and methane emissions can contribute to higher ozone levels. 

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, 2009b). 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-12

3.1 Air Quality

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 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, issued on March 19, 

2015, establishes policy for federal agencies to maintain federal leadership in sustainability and 

greenhouse gas emission reductions. As noted in the Order, through a combination of more efficient 

federal operations, agency direct greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by at least 40 percent over 

the next decade while fostering innovation, reducing spending, and strengthening the communities in 

which federal facilities operate. 

In June 2014, Department of Defense (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). 

3.1.1.6.1 Current Requirements and Practices 

The Navy is committed to improving energy security and environmental stewardship by reducing 

reliance on fossil fuels. The Navy is actively developing and participating in energy, environmental, and 

climate change initiatives that will increase use of alternative energy and reduce emissions of 

greenhouse gases. The Navy has adopted energy, environmental, and climate change goals. These goals 

include increasing alternative energy use Navy-wide 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-13

3.1 Air Quality

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). 

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 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-14

3.1 Air Quality

35° F. Polar lows usually occur during the fall, winter, and early spring. Northeast United States 

Continental Shelf 

Along the coasts of Maine to New Jersey, 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 miles per hour (mph), and highest in 

January at 15.7 to 20.0 mph. 

Annual average air temperature ranges from 47° to 60° F along the coast of Maine to New Jersey 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017). Seasonal variations in temperature are 

greatest during the winter months. In January and February, the ambient temperature averages 28° F 

along the coast of Maine to New Jersey. 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 New Jersey, precipitation is frequent and abundant but occurs evenly 

throughout the year (Minerals Management Service, 2007). Average annual rainfall along the Atlantic 

Coast ranges from about 42 inches (in.) in Block Island, Rhode Island, to 58 in. in Miami, Florida. 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 systems through the eastern 

seaboard. Precipitation also falls as snow along the coasts of Maine to New Jersey. 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. 

3.1.2.2.1.2 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-15

3.1 Air Quality

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. 

3.1.2.2.1.3 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 

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, 2006). 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, 2006). 

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). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-16

3.1 Air Quality

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. They are also 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. 

Table 3.1-3: Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas Adjacent to Study Area 

Area Name Coastal Locations Included Designation

EPA 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)

EPA Region 3

Seaford, DE Sussex County Ozone (n-marginal
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-17

3.1 Air Quality

Table 3.1-3: Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas Adjacent to Study Area (continued)

Area Name Coastal Locations Included Designation

EPA 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

EPA 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, 2017) 

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 

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. John’s River, Florida

Duval County Attainment of all applicable standards

Port Canaveral, Cape Canaveral, 

Florida

Brevard County Attainment of all applicable standards

Saint Andrews 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, 2017)

Figure 3.1-1 through Figure 3.1-4 show the nonattainment and maintenance areas that are within or 

adjacent to the AFTT operational area. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-18

3.1 Air Quality

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operation Area; 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-19

3.1 Air Quality

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operation Area; 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-20

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-21

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-22

3.1 Air Quality

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 

these 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 off-shore 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 

on the coast of the US, 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 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 afield. 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, Newport Rhode Island. Additional areas where 

training or testing occurs within state waters include the St. Johns River near Naval Station Mayport FL, 

Port Canaveral FL, St. Andrews Bay near Naval Support Activity Panama City FL and the Cooper River 

near Charleston, SC. 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. Table 3.1-4 to 

Table 3.1-7 present the total emissions for the baseline and proposed training and testing activity 

locations under each alternative. The air quality stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and 

location within the Study Area. The stressors applicable to air quality in the Study Area are analyzed 

below and include the following: 

 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. 

3.1.3.1 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-23

3.1 Air Quality

determine the potential impact of the emissions on the attainment status of the adjacent designated air 

quality area. For a nonattainment or maintenance area, this involves evaluating the net change in 

emissions that would result from implementing the Proposed Action, as compared to current emissions, 

which are classified as the baseline emissions for the purpose of this analysis. The net change is then 

compared to published de minimis thresholds to assess compliance. The baseline emissions are defined 

as the emissions estimated for the Preferred Alternative that was proposed in the 2013 Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Final Environmental Impact Statement / Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement. Emissions of criteria air pollutants may affect human health directly by degrading local or 

regional air quality or indirectly by their effects on the environment. Air pollutant emissions may also 

have a regulatory effect separate from their physical effect, if additional air pollutant emissions change 

the attainment status of an air quality control region. 

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 

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. 

3.1.3.1.1 Impacts from Criteria Pollutant 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, with the majority of emissions in most areas occurring 

beyond the state water boundaries. For Virginia Capes OPAREA, the use of vessels within the state 

waters is up to 2%, and in the Jacksonville OPAREA, the use of vessels within state waters is up to 1%. 

The subsections that follow evaluate the emission in state waters within the Study Area that include 

nonattainment or maintenance areas. 

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 6.94 45.59 275.06 56.28 14.52 14.52

Virginia Capes 128.06 1,128.22 3,961.83 1,075.04 209.23 209.23

Cherry Point 40.13 343.83 891.52 169.00 41.72 41.72

Jacksonville 48.76 490.23 1,109.36 313.03 75.06 75.06
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-24

3.1 Air Quality

Table 3.1-5: Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Activities Occurring within the 

AFTT Study Area, Alternative 1 (continued)

Range Complex Emissions by Air Pollutant (TPY)

VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Key West 2.78 13.32 77.58 12.99 4.92 4.92

Gulf of Mexico 9.67 127.25 463.74 116.05 25.83 25.83

Outside Range Complex Areas 53.64 332.74 1,683.07 383.46 55.59 55.59

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 aerodynamic 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. 

In addition to the activities occurring beyond territorial waters, there would be activities closer to shore 

and these were evaluated to assess local onshore impacts. 

3.1.3.1.2 Impacts from Criteria Pollutant Emissions 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 state waters activities in this 

region do 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 Impacts from Criteria Pollutant Emissions 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 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 Nassau County is nonattainment for sulfur dioxide. Table 3.1-6 presents the 

estimated state waters emissions and their relevance to applicable General Conformity thresholds. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-25

3.1 Air Quality

Table 3.1-6: Estimated Net Change 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 1.85 8.34 63.03 11.39 1.91 1.91

Baseline 4.98 51.70 31.26 10.50 3.11 3.11

Net Change -3.13 -43.36 31.76 0.89 -1.20 -1.20

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 Impacts from Criteria Pollutant Emissions 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 

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 Undersea Warfare Center 

Panama City, Florida which is in attainment for all pollutants. 

3.1.3.1.5 Summary of Impacts from Criteria Pollutants under Alternative 1 

While 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. 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. 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. 

3.1.3.1.6 Impacts from Criteria Pollutant 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 OPAREA, the use of vessels within the 

state waters is greater than in other portions of the Study Area. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-26

3.1 Air Quality

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. 

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 6.37 46.75 252.28 48.26 16.90 16.90

Virginia Capes 124.05 1,124.25 4,232.97 1,161.70 353.96 353.96

Cherry Point 29.41 180.79 793.93 190.95 38.81 38.81

Jacksonville 60.49 607.27 2,033.74 546.75 92.58 92.58

Key West 0.92 15.32 30.75 10.59 3.18 3.18

Gulf of Mexico 3.04 32.06 106.10 27.02 14.44 14.44

Outside Range Complex 

Areas 162.29 569.59 4,160.17 656.71 90.15 90.15

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 aerodynamic 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 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. 

In addition to the activities occurring beyond territorial waters, there would be activities closer to shore 

and these were evaluated to assess local onshore impacts. 

3.1.3.1.7 Impacts from Criteria Pollutant Emissions 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-27

3.1 Air Quality

Center Newport and Narragansett Bay, both of which are in Rhode Island, an area in attainment for all 

pollutants. 

3.1.3.1.8 Impacts from Criteria Pollutant Emissions 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 2.04 11.29 69.05 12.58 2.21 2.04

Baseline 4.98 51.70 31.26 10.50 3.11 3.11

Net Change -2.94 -40.41 37.79 2.09 -0.90 -0.90

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. 

3.1.3.1.9 Impacts from Criteria Pollutant Emissions 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 Undersea Warfare Center 

Panama City, Florida which is in attainment for all pollutants. 

State waters emissions associated with AFTT activities would all be below the General Conformity de 

minimis thresholds. As a result, no further analysis of conformity is required and a Record of NonApplicability, located in Appendix C, was prepared in accordance with Navy guidance. . 

3.1.3.1.10 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-28

3.1 Air Quality

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. 

3.1.3.1.11 Impacts from Criteria 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. 

3.1.3.2 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 testing and training 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 net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions would be anticipated 

compared to the baseline estimate, with the largest decrease associated with Alternative 1, as indicated 

in Table 3.1-9. 

Table 3.1-9: Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions from All Study Area Training and Testing 

Activities 

Alternative Annual CO2 Emissions in Metric Tons/Year

Baseline 1,360,794

Alternative 1 1,088,429

Net Change -272,364

Alternative 2 1,296,256

Net Change -64,538

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-29

3.1 Air Quality

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). Hazardous air pollutants were analyzed qualitatively in relation to the type and prevalence 

of the sources emitting hazardous air pollutants during training and testing activities. 

3.1.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 1 

As discussed in Section 3.1.3.1 (Criteria Air Pollutants), 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. A comparison of estimated emissions under Alternative 

1 to the baseline indicates that some pollutant emissions would be reduced and others would increase. 

Emissions of VOCs remain largely static, and PM emissions would undergo a small increase. Carbon 

monoxide and greenhouse gases would decrease substantially. Nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide would 

increase. A significant cause of the increase in nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions is due to the 

inclusion of more accurate data for riverine and bay testing and training activities, particularly in the 

Virginia environs. Because these activities were not well accounted for in the analyses presented in the 

2013 Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS, it appears that there has been a sizeable 

increase. However, it is simply the result of better information and hence a more accurate accounting of 

what typically occurs in these areas. 

3.1.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under Alternative 2 

As discussed in Section 3.1.3.1 (Criteria Air Pollutants), 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 VOCs remain largely static, and PM emissions would undergo a small 

increase. Carbon monoxide and greenhouse gases would decrease substantially. Nitrogen oxides and 

sulfur dioxide would increase. A significant cause of the increase in nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide 

emissions is due to the inclusion of more accurate data for riverine and bay testing and training 

activities, particularly in the Virginia environs. Because these activities were not well accounted for in 

the analyses presented in the 2013 Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS, it appears that 

there has been a sizeable increase. However, it is simply the result of better information and hence a 

more accurate accounting of what typically occurs in these areas. 

3.1.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action Alternative 

As discussed in Sections 3.1.3.1 (Criteria Air Pollutants), 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-30

3.1 Air Quality

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-31

3.1 References

References 

Arfsten, D. P., C. L. Wilson, & 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 (AR4). 

Melillo, J., T. Richmond, & G. Yhoe. (2014). Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third 

National Climate Assessmen. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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: Retrieved from 

https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Newsroom/Library/Publications/2002/2002-052-vol1.aspx. 

Minerals Management Service. (2006). Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007–2012. New 

Orleans, LA. 

Minerals Management Service. (2007). Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative 

Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental 

Shelf: Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2005). Hurricane Katrina: A Climatological 

Perspective. (Technical Report 2005-01). Asheville, NC: Retrieved from 

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/techrpts/tr200501/tech-report-200501z.pdf. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2017, February 16). 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 

Spargo, B. J., T. L. Hullar, S. L. Fales, H. F. Hemond, P. Koutrakis, W. H. Schlesinger, & J. G. Watson. 

(1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff. Naval Research Laboratory. 

U.S. Department of Defense. (2014). 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. Alexandria, VA. 

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. 

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. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010). United States Marine Corps F-35B East Coast Basing Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013). Navy Guidance for Compliance with the Clean Air Act General 

Conformity. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.1-32

3.1 References

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. 

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). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007, 2008, 2009). 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. (2009a). Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 

Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 

Technical support document for endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases 

under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (2009b). 

Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations; Final Rule (2010a). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010b). Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Non-road 

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. (2017, February 13). 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 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2013). Revision of the UNFCCC 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

i 

Table of Contents 

Draft 

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.................................................................................... 3.2-26

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.2-39

3.2.3.1 Explosives and Explosives Byproducts .............................................. 3.2-40

3.2.3.2 Chemicals Other Than Explosives ..................................................... 3.2-49

3.2.3.3 Metals ............................................................................................... 3.2-54

3.2.3.4 Other Materials ................................................................................. 3.2-62

3.2.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Sediments and Water Quality .................... 3.2-68

3.2.4.1 Combined Impact of all Stressors under Alternative 1 ..................... 3.2-68

3.2.4.2 Combined Impact of all Stressors under Alternative 2 ..................... 3.2-69

3.2.4.3 Combined Impact of all Stressors under the No Action 

Alternative ........................................................................................ 3.2-69

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 ............................. 3.2-14

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 .................................................. 3.2-21

Figure 3.2-5: Marine Marker Deposited on a Mound at 300 meter Depth .......................................... 3.2-25

Figure 3.2-6: Water Quality Ratings for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Coast ................................... 3.2-29

Figure 3.2-7: Water Quality Ratings for the Southeast Coast ............................................................... 3.2-33

Figure 3.2-8: Water Quality Ratings for the Gulf of Mexico Coast ....................................................... 3.2-35
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 ................................................................................................................. 3.2-26

Table 3.2-5: Percent Marine Debris by Source in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study 

Area .................................................................................................................................. 3.2-38

Table 3.2-6: Water Solubility of Common Explosives and Explosive Degradation Products ................ 3.2-41

Table 3.2-7: Failure and Low-Order Detonation Rates of Military Munitions ...................................... 3.2-44

Table 3.2-8: Constituents in Munitions Other Than Explosives ............................................................ 3.2-51

Table 3.2-9: Concentrations of and Screening Levels for Selected Metals in Marine 

Sediments, Vieques, Puerto Rico ..................................................................................... 3.2-57

Table 3.2-10: Summary of Components of Marine Markers and Flares ............................................... 3.2-63

Table 3.2-11: Major Components of Chaff ........................................................................................... 3.2-64
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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. 

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. 

SEDIMENTS AND WATER QUALITY 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 by products: 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 measureable 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 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-2 

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

3.2.1.1.1.1 Characteristics of Sediments 

Sediments consist of solid fragments of 

organic and inorganic matter at the 

bottom 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 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 

single-celled benthic and planktonic 

organisms (e.g., organisms in the phylum 

foraminifera and diatoms). When the 

organism dies, its shell is deposited on the 

seafloor. The remains are composed 

primarily of either calcium carbonate 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). Sands 

range in size from 0.05 millimeter (mm) (very fine sands) to 2 mm (very course sands) in diameter 

(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 0.05 mm in diameter) and clays (particles less than 0.002 mm in diameter). 

Sediments larger than very course sands are considered cobbles (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993). 

Sediments in nearshore waters and on the continental shelf are primarily terrigenous, and sediments 

farther from land in deep ocean basins are primarily biogenic. Through the downward movement of 

organic and inorganic particles in the water column, many substances that are otherwise scarce in the 

water column are 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 

Figure 3.2-1: Sediment Particle Size Comparison

Note: mm = millimeter
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-3 

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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, 

2008b). 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). 

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, 2008b). Location 

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, 2008b), 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-4 

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 to 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 (m) (Li et al., 

2008). 

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). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-5 

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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. 

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). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-6 

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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. 

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 on air quality and impacts 

from military expended materials, but not impacts from discharges addressed under the Convention or 

the Uniform National Discharge Standards program. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-7 

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 sediments or water quality would not be detectable 

and total concentrations would be below or within existing conditions or designated uses. 

 Chemical, physical, or biological changes in sediments or water quality would be measurable but 

total concentrations would be below applicable standards, regulations, and guidelines, and 

would be within existing conditions or designated uses. 

 Chemical, physical, or biological changes in sediments or water quality would be measurable and 

readily apparent but total concentrations would be within applicable standards, regulations, and 

guidelines. Sediment or water quality would be altered compared to the historical baseline, 

desired conditions, or designated uses. Mitigation would be necessary and would likely be 

successful. 

 Chemical, physical, or biological changes in sediments or water quality would be readily 

measurable, and some standards, regulations, and guidelines would be periodically approached, 

equaled, or exceeded by total concentrations. Sediment or water quality would be frequently 

altered from the historical baseline, desired conditions, or designated uses. 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. 

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, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-8 

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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. 

3.2.2.1.1 Sediments 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. 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 

(<5 percent) (Chang et al., 2001; Kennett, 1982). 

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, 2008a, 

2008b; Aquarone et al., 2008). However, pollution is increasing from offshore oil and gas development 

activities (Aquarone & Adams, 2008a, 2008b), and metal pollution exists from prior mineral 

development activity and atmospheric deposition (Bindler, 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-9 

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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, 2008c). 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 sample were rated as poor, and the sediment 

contaminant index was fair. Sediments in an area were rated as poor if one or more samples were rated 

as 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 as 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 as good, 20 percent rated as fair, and 9 percent rated as poor (data were 

missing for 11 percent of sampling sites). While 80 percent of sediments were rated as good for 

contaminants, only 58 percent were rated as good for sediment toxicity, which was the primary reason 

for the decline in overall sediment quality. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-10

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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

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 a quality index for sediments and water bodies.

2ERM (effects range-median) is the level measured in the sediment below which adverse biological effects were measured 

50% of the time.

3ERL (effects range-low) is the level measured in the sediment below which adverse biological effects were measured 10% 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 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. 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-11

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 

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

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% 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, 1986a; 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 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). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-12

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 break down in the environment, including in the marine environment, 

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, 1986a; 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 break down 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). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-13

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 

Sediment 

Contaminant

Contaminant Concentration (ppb)

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Northeast

MidAtlantic Southeast Gulf of MexicoEffects RangeLow1Effects 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

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% 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 as 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 as 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 (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, 2008; Paliwoda, 2015). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-14

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.2-2: Sediment Quality Ratings for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Coast 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-15

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

Massachusetts. Sediment quality along the Massachusetts coast was rated as 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 as 50 percent good and 40 percent poor; 10 percent of 

sampling site data were labeled as missing. 

Rhode Island. Sediment quality along the Rhode Island coast was rated as 64 percent good, 7 percent 

fair, and 29 percent poor (Figure 3.2-2). In Narragansett Bay sediment quality was rated as 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 as 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 et al., 2000; Varekamp et al., 2014). As discussed above (see 

Section 3.2.2.1.1.2), 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 as 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. 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 as 100 percent good. Information for Delaware Bay is provide under the entry for 

Delaware. 

Delaware. Sediment quality in Delaware Bay was rated as 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 as 100 percent good in the 

National Coastal Condition Assessment (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016) (Figure 3.2-2). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-16

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 

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 as 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 as 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 as 83 percent good and 17 percent 

poor. Sediment quality in Pamlico Sound located south of Albemarle Sound and west of Cape Hatteras is 

rated as 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., 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-17

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 

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 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 3.0-3 for their locations in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem. 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 (1986b) 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-18

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

South Carolina. Sediment quality along the South Carolina coast was rated as 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 as 71 percent as good, 22 percent as fair, 

and 7 percent rates as 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 as good, 

24 percent rated as 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. (2006) 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 as 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 (2010a) 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, 2010b). 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-19

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.2-3: Sediment Quality Ratings for the Southeast Coast 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-20

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 Florida (west coast), Alabama, 

Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Please see Figure 3.0-1 in Section 3.0 (Introduction) for range 

complexes within each large marine ecosystem and Figure 3.0-4 for their locations in the Gulf of Mexico 

Large Marine Ecosystem. 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 as 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, 2008c). 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 (1986b) 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-21

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-22

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 approximately 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 as 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 as 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-23

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 as 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 as 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 as 

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 as 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 as 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 as 

100 percent good. Sediment quality in Atchafalaya Bay at the mouth of the Atchafalaya River was rated 

as 67 percent good and 33 percent poor. 

Texas. Galveston Bay, Matagorda Bay, and Corpus Christi Bay are the three largest coastal embayment 

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 are rated as very good for metal contaminants (Lester & 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-24

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

good condition. Farther south along the coastline, Matagorda Bay sediment quality was rated as 

67 percent good and 33 percent poor, and sediment quality in Corpus Christi Bay was rated as 

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. Within the Study Area, the majority of the Key West Range Complex is located within this 

ecosystem. See Figure 3.0-1 for range complexes within each large marine ecosystem and Figure 3.0-4 

for their locations in the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem in Section 3.0 (Introduction). 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 (> 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 as 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 as 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. Johns (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012b). Whitall et 

al. (2015) sampled sediments in Fish and Coral bays on St. John’s 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, 2010a). 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-25

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

Atlantic Ocean inventoried marine debris (i.e., Law et al., 2010; Sheavly, 2007; Sheavly, 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-26

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). 

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. 

PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl, PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 

DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, ppb = parts per billion

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-27

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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, 2008a, 2008b; Aquarone et al., 2008). 

However, pollution is increasing from oil and gas development activities (Aquarone & Adams, 2008a, 

2008b), and concern has been expressed regarding spills, discharges, and contaminants from marine 

vessels (Aquarone & Adams, 2008b). 

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. 

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 <1 ng/L and open-ocean 

concentrations of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) were measured as <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. 

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 mi. offshore. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-28

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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, 2008c). 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, 2008a). 

New Hampshire. Water quality for coastal waters, including estuaries and bays, assessed in New 

Hampshire is rated as 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-29

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.2-6: Water Quality Ratings for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Coast 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-30

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 is rated as 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, DE, 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-31

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

advisories have been issued for fish consumption related to polychlorinated biphenyls and mercury 

(Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2010). 

North Carolina. Water quality along the North Carolina coast is rated as 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 Society, 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 issues 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. 

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., 2008). 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).

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-32

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 is 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 is rated as 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 (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2005). 

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, 2010a). 

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 3.0-4 for their locations in the Gulf of Mexico 

Large Marine Ecosystem. 

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-33

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

Notes: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.2-7: Water Quality Ratings for the Southeast Coast 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-34

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 is 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 were 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 as 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 were 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-35

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-36

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

Texas. Water quality for the coastal waters in Texas were 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. Within 

the Study Area, 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 3.0-4 for their locations in the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. 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 as 

50 percent good, 40 percent fair, and 10 percent poor. Poor water clarity ratings in combination with 

elevated dissolved inorganic phosphorous levels or chlorophyll-a 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 as 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-37

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 micro plastics 

are still being researched. Since there is no way of effectively removing micro plastics from the marine 

environment, and given that plastics are highly resistant to degradation, it is likely that the quantity of 

micro plastics 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 micro plastics, 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 breakdown 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-38

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 

wastes 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, 

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-39

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-40

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. 

 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, explosion 

byproduct, metals, and other chemicals and materials constituents 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 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-41

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-42

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); Zhao et al. (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 has included rounds from small caliber 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-43

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

guns up to the Navy’s largest (16 inch [in.] guns), bombs, rockets, mortars, grenades, mines, depth 

charges, and torpedoes (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013a). 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, 2013b). 

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 containing 

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 explosive material entering 

the marine environment would be in the form of unexploded munitions. 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 available data, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-44

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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: Rand Corporation (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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-45

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 approximately 300 individual sources of underwater 

acoustic sound or explosive energy, a series of source classifications, or source bins, were developed 

(see Section 3.0.3.3.1, Acoustic Stressors and Section 3.0.3.3.2, Explosive Stressors). Each source bin for 

explosive munitions 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 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) x 0.175 lb. (Average NEW) = 14 lb. 

One other factor needs to be considered when estimating the amount of explosives entering the 

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 TNT equivalency factor: 

Explosives = 0.05 (Failure Rate) x 1,600 (Munitions) x 0.175 lb. (Average NEW) 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, 2010b, 2010c, 2013c). 

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-46

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 

deepwater (> 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 would be released per sinking exercise in the form 

of intact munitions that fail 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 has an area much less 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-47

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, 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 event munitions in either of these two bins fail to 

detonate during a ship shock trial as planned, they would be detonated by other means and would not 

remain in the environment as undetonated munitions. Therefore, munitions in the E16 and E17 bins 

were excluded from estimates of the amount of explosives entering the environment in munitions that 

fail to detonate. 

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 (Activity Descriptions). 

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 (> 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 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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-48

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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, 2010b, 2010c, 

2013c). 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 

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 one 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, 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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-49

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 measureable 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 

they are 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. 

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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-50

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 (Waters et al., 2013). 

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 U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (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 

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 list 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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-51

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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). 

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). 

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 

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

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)
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-52

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

Table 3.2-8: Constituents in Munitions Other Than Explosives (continued) 

Munitions Component Constituent

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-sporeforming 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 

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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-53

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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). 

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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-54

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 measureable 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. 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 (Jarup, 2016). 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 are a greater issue 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, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-55

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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, 2010c). 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. 

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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-56

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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, 2010c, 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, 2010c). 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 risks 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 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-57

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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. 

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 (Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command, 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, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-58

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 has 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, 2013a). Results from the assessment 

indicate that munitions expended at Dahlgren have not contributed significant concentrations of metals 

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, 2013b). 

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 expend 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 (Activity 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-59

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 

munition 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 

characterize deepwater (> 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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-60

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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. Munition 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 medium 

caliber projectiles, 17 percent are non-explosive large caliber projectiles, and 10 percent are small 

caliber 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 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 (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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-61

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 the 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 non-explosive); 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 would have the same environmental impacts as under Alternative 1. 

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 measureable 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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-62

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 weight. To produce the lengthy smoke effect, 

approximately 40 percent of the marker 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, 2010b, 2010c). 

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 

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. Department of the Air Force, 1997). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-63

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2003). A 

study by the U.S. Department of the 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 

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 et 

al., 1999; U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). 

Factors influencing chaff dispersion include the altitude and location where it is released, prevailing 

winds, and meteorological conditions (Hullar et al., 1999; Spargo, 2007). Doppler radar has tracked chaff 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-64

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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, Hullar et al. (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 (Hullar et al., 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 

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. 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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-65

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

surrounding seawater, reducing the potential for chemical concentrations to reach levels that can affect 

sediment quality or benthic habitats. 

Schiff (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 

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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-66

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

plastic debris 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 debris floating near the 

surface and exposed to the sun and mechanical wear and tear would breakdown over time. Plastic 

debris 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 debris 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 Complex. 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 

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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-67

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

plastic debris 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 debris floating near the 

surface and exposed to the sun and mechanical wear and tear would breakdown over time. Plastic 

debris 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 debris from military expended materials on living marine 

resources and habitats are analyzed in other sections of the Draft 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 breakdown 

into small pieces within a few days to weeks. The polymer will breakdown 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 decelerator/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, other materials 

would have the same environmental impacts as 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 decelerator/parachutes. The 

small increase in plastics and metals in the additional expended materials would not change the 

conclusions presented under Alternative 1. Therefore, other materials would have the same 

environmental impacts as under Alternative 1. 

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 these materials in marine waters and sediments. The effect, however, would likely not be 

measureable 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. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-68

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 were 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, 

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). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-69

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 measureable 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 

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 measureable 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 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-70

3.2 Sediments and Water Quality 

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-71

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, Public Health Services. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2008). Toxicological Profile for Perchlorates. Atlanta, 

GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services. 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management. (2010). 2010 Integrated water quality monitoring 

and assessment report: water quality, in Alabama 2008–2009. Montgomery, AL. 

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., & S. Adams. (2008a). XIX-59 Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf: LME #9. In. In K. Sherman 

& G. Hempel (Eds.), The UNEP large marine ecosystem report: A perspective on changing 

conditions in LMEs of the world's regional seas (pp. 787–794). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations 

Environmental Programme. 

Aquarone, M. C., & S. Adams. (2008b). XIX-60 Scotian Shelf: LME #8. In. In K. Sherman & G. Hempel 

(Eds.), The UNEP large marine ecosystem report: A perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of 

the world's regional seas (pp. 795–803). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental 

Programme. 

Aquarone, M. C., & S. Adams. (2008c). XIX-61 Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf: LME #7. In. In K. Sherman 

& G. Hempel (Eds.), The UNEP large marine ecosystem report: A perspective on changing 

conditions in LMEs of the World's Regional Seas (pp. 805–815). Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations 

Environment Programme. 

Aquarone, M. C., S. Adams, D. Mikkelson, & T. J. Pedersen. (2008). XIX-58 West Greenland Shelf: LME 

#18. In. In K. Sherman & G. Hempel (Eds.), 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, & B. J. Spargo. (2002). Radio frequency chaff: The effects of its use in training 

on the environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 53(1), 1–11. 

Bindler, R. (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. 

Boehm, P. D., & A. G. Requejo. (1986a). Overview of the recent sediment hydrocarbon geochemistry of 

Atlantic and Gulf Coast Outer Continental Shelf Environments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science, 29–58. 

Boehm, P. D., & A. G. Requejo. (1986b). Overview of the recent sediment hydrocarbon geochemistry of 

Atlantic and Gulf Coast Outer Continental Shelf environments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science, 23, 29–58. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-72

3.2 References 

Bonfil, R., S. Clarke, & 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): Blackwell Publishing. 

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, & 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. Sarthou, V. Schoemann, J. M. Trapp, D. R. 

Turner, & 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, & 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., & C. W. Holmes. (1990). Modern configuration of the southwest Florida carbonate slope: 

Development by shelf margin progradtion. 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). NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables, NOAA OR&R Report 08-1 (pp. 34). 

Seattle, WA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Response and 

Restoration Division. 

Byrne, R. H. (1996). Specific problems in the measurement and intrepretation of complexation 

phenomena in seawater. Pure & Application Chemical, 68(8), 1639–1656. 

California Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Red Phosphorus. Technical Support Document: 

Toxicology Clandestine Drug Labs/Methamphetamine (Vol. 1, No. 12). Sacramento, CA: Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

Cantillo, A. Y., G. G. Lauenstein, & 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, & W. E. Yasso. (1973). Trace metals in sediments of New York Bight. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 4, 132–135. 

Carr, R. S., & 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, & 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, & C. N. Kamunde. (2003). Conducting Ecological 

Risk Assessments of Inorganic Metals and Metalloids: Current Status. Human and Ecological Risk 

Assessment, 9(4), 641–697. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-73

3.2 References 

Chaturvedi, S., & P. N. Dave. (2015). Solid propellants: AP/HTPB composite propellants. Arabian Journal 

of Chemistry. 

Chester, R. (2003). Marine Geochemistry (Second 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. 

Clark, G. M., & 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., & T. S. Galloway. (2015). Ingestion of Nanoplastics and Microplastics by Pacific Oyster Larvae. 

Environmental Science & Technology, 49(24), 14625–14632. 

Coleman, J. M., & D. B. Prior. (1988). Mass wasting on continental margins. Annual Review of Earth 

Planet Science, 16, 101–119. 

Coxon, T. M., B. K. Odhiambo, & 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, & 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, & G. L. Rorrer. (2007). Comparison of TNT removal from seawater by three 

marine macroalgae. Chemsphere, 67, 1469–1476. 

Demina, L. L., & 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, & 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, & 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., & 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. Mahk, T. Kerby, G. J. Kurras, M. R. Rognstad, L. Sheild, J. 

Silva, B. Wellington, & M. Van Woerkom. (2016). The Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions 

Assessment. Deep-Sea Research II, 128, 4–13. 

Eggleton, J., & 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 

(CFMETR) Environmental Assessment Update 2005 (pp. 652). Kingston, Ontario: Environmental 

Sciences Group, Royal Military College. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-74

3.2 References 

European Flame Retardants Association. (2002). Flame retardant fact sheet: Red phosphorus (RP). 

Retrieved 24 February 2011, from http://www.ceficefra.com/Objects/2/Files/RedPhosphorusFactSheet.pdf

Farrell, R. E., & S. D. Siciliano. (2007). Environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) chaff released during 

military tining exercises: A review of the literature. 

Farrington, J. W., & 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., & B. W. Tripp. (1977). Hydrocarbons in western North Atlantic surface sediments. 

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 41, 1627–1641. 

Fitzgerald, W. F., C. H. Lamborg, & C. R. Hammerschmidt. (2007). Marine biogeochemical cycling of 

mercury. Chemical Review, 107, 641–662. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2010a). Integrated water quality assessment for 

Florida: 2010 305(b) report and 303(d) list update. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2010b). Integrated Water Quality Assessment for 

Florida: 2010 305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update. Tallahassee, FL. 

Galgani, F., G. Hanke, & 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, & R. T. Buffler. (2000). Cenozioic depositional history of the Gulf 

of Mexico basin. AAPG Bulletin, 84(11), 1743–1774. 

Gearing, P., J. N. Gearing, T. F. Lytle, & 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. (2005). The condition of Georgia's estuarine and coastal 

habitats 2000–2001. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. (2010). Water quality in Georgia 2008–2009. Atlanta Georgia: 

Environmental Protection Division. 

Hackney, C. T., J. Grimley, M. Posey, & T. Alphin. (1998). Sediment contamination in North Carolina's 

Estuaries. Wilmington, NC: Center for Marine Science Research, University of North Carolina at 

Wilmington. 

Hameedi, M. J., A. S. Pait, & R. A. Warner. (2002). Environmental Contaminant Monitoring in the Gulf of 

Maine. Paper presented at the Northeast Coastal Monitoring Summit, Durham, NH. 

Hartwell, S. I., & 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., & J. M. Oades. (1997). Review paper comparative organic geochemistries of soils and 

marine sediments. Organic Geochemistry, 27(7/8), 319–361. 

Heileman, S., & R. Mahon. (2008). XV-49 Caribbean Sea: LME #12. 

Heileman, S., & N. Rabalais. (2008). XV-50 Gulf of Mexico: LME #5. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-75

3.2 References 

Herbert, D. A., W. B. Perry, B. J. Cosby, & 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, & D. C. Lee. (2007). The trace-metal composition of size-fractionated 

plankton in the South China Sea: Biotic versus abiotic sources. Liminology Oceangraphy, 52(5), 

1776–1788. 

Hullar, T. L., S. L. Fales, H. F. Hemond, P. Koutrakis, W. H. Schlesinger, R. R. Sobonya, J. M. Teal, & J. G. 

Watson. (1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff A Select Panel Report to the Undersecretary 

of Defense for Environmental Security (pp. 84): U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Research 

Laboratory. 

Hyland, J. L., W. L. Balthis, C. T. Hackney, & 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. 

Hyland, J. L., C. Cooksey, W. L. Balthis, M. Fulton, D. Bearden, G. McFall, & M. Kendall. (2006). The softbottom macrobenthos of Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary and nearby shelf waters off the 

coast of Georgia, USA. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 330, 307–326. 

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. (2008). Tidal Potomac PCB TMDL development (Vol. 

2011). 

Jarup, L. (2016). Hazards of heavy metal contamination. British medical bulletin, 68, 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, & M.-C. Lapointe. (2008). Characterization and Fate of Gun and Rocket 

Propellant Residues on Testing and Training Ranges: Final Report. (ERDC TR-08-1). 

Juhasz, A. L., & 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, & 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, & 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. 

Kennett, J. P. (1982). Marine Geology. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall. 

Koide, S., J. A. K. Silva, V. Dupra, & 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, & A. J. Steward. (2003). Toxicity of lithium to three freshwater organisms 

and the antagonistic effect of sodium. Ecotoxicology, 12, 427–437. 

Kvenvolden, K. A., & C. K. Cooper. (2003). Natural seepage of crude oil into the marine environment. 

Geo-Marine Letter, 23, 140–146. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-76

3.2 References 

Lamoreaux, E. M., & 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, & W. R. Matzie. (1994). Eutrophication and trophic state classification of 

seagrass communities in the Florida Keys. Bulletin of Marine Science, 54(3), 696–717. 

Larsen, T. S., J. A. Kristensen, G. Asmund, & 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, & C. M. 

Reddy. (2010). Plastic accumulation in the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. Science, 329(3), 

1185–1188. 

Law, K. L., S. E. Moret-Ferguson, D. S. Goodwin, E. R. Zettler, E. Deforce, T. Kukulka, & 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. 

Lester, L. J., & L. A. Gonzalez. (2011). The State of the Bay: A Characterization of the Galveston Bay 

Ecosystem, Third Edition. Chapter 6, Water and Sediment Quality. Houston, TX: Retrieved from 

http://www.galvbaydata.org/StateoftheBay/tabid/1846/Default.aspx. 

Lewis, M. A., J. C. Moore, L. R. Goodman, J. M. Patrick, R. S. Stanley, T. H. Roush, & 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, & 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: Academic Press. 

Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, & 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, & 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, & C. G. Ingersoll. (1996). Development and 

evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicology, 5, 253–278. 

Mallin, M. A., J. M. Burkholder, L. B. Cahoon, & M. H. Posey. (2000). North and South Carolina coasts. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 41(1–6), 56–75. 

Mann, K. H., & 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 in Manta Rays. Retrieved April 14, 2017, from 

http://www.mantatrust.org/threats/natural-predation/

Maryland Coastal Bays Program. (2015). Coastal Bays Report Card. Retrieved from 

http://www.mdcoastalbays.org/content/files/report%20card%202014%20FINAL.pdf. 

Mato, Y., T. Isobe, H. Takada, H. Kanehiro, C. Ohtake, & T. Kaminuma. (2001). Plastic resin pellets as a 

tranport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environmental Science 

Technology, 35, 318–324. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-77 

3.2 References 

McBride, R. A., & 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., L. Buchholtzten, & M. R. Brink. (2000). Containment distribution and accumulation in the 

surface sediments of Long Island Sound. Journal of Coastal Research, 16(3), 575–590. 

Melillo, J. M., T. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe. (2014). Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The 

Third National Climate Assessment (pp. 841): U.S. Global Change Research Program. 

Milliman, J. D., O. H. Pilkey, & D. A. Ross. (1972). Sediments of the continental margin off the eastern 

United States. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 83(5), 1315–1334. 

Missile Technology Control Regime. (1996). Missile Technology Control Regime. from 

http://www.mtcr.info/english/index.html

Mitchell, C. P. J., & C. C. Gilmour. (2008). Methylmercury production in a Chesapeake Bay salt marsh. 

Journal of Geophysical Research, 113. 

Mitsch, W. J., & J. G. Gosselink. (2007). Wetlands (Fourth ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Mitsch, W. J., J. G. Gosselink, C. J. Anderson, & 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. 

Murray, A. B., & 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, & R. C. Thompson. (2015). Characterisation, quantity and sorptive 

properties of microplastics extracted from cosmetics. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 99(1–2), 178–

185. 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command. (1993). Report on continuing action: Standard range sonobuoy 

quality assurance program, San Clemente Island, California. San Diego, CA. 

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. (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. 

Nipper, M., R. S. Carr, J. M. Biedenbach, R. L. Hooten, & 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 February 16, 2011, 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, & 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: NOAA MCCOS 110. 

Paliwoda, R. E., Newbigging, A. M., Wang, Z., & Le, X. C. (2015). Benefits and risks associated with 

consumption of Great Lakes fish containing omega-3 fatty acids and polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs). Journal of Environmental Sciences, 41(3), 1-5. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-78

3.2 References 

Pavlostathis, S. G., & G. H. Jackson. (2002). Biotransformation of 2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene in a continuousflow 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., & J. M. Brannon. (2002). Environmental fate of explosives. Thermochimica Acta, 

384(1–2), 163–172. 

Powell, S., P. D. Franzmann, R. Cord-Ruwisch, & S. Toze. (1998). Degradation of 2-nitrodiphenylamine, a 

component of Otto Fuel II, by Clostridium spp. Anaerobe, 4, 95–102. 

Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, & W. J. Wiseman, Jr. (2002). Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a. "The Dead Zone" 

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33( ), 235–263. 

Rand Corporation. (2005). Unexploded ordnance cleanup costs: Implications of alternative protocols. In 

J. MacDonald & C. Mendez (Eds.). Santa Monica, CA. 

Ravindra, K., R. Sokhi, & 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, & D. L. Mearns. (1996). Hardbottom morphology and relationship to 

the geologica framework: mid-Atlantic continental shelf. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 66(4), 

830–846. 

Santschi, P. H., B. J. Presley, T. L. Wade, B. Garcia-Romero, & 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, & 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. 

Schiff, S. C. (1977). Effects of Aluminized Fiberglass on Representative Chesapeake Bay Marine 

Organisms. Washington, DC: Systems Consultants, Inc. 

Sericano, J. L., T. L. Wade, S. T. Sweet, J. Ramirez, & 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, & S. Ahmed. (2008). Biological degradation of plastics: a 

comprehensive review. Biotechnology Advances, 26, 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. 

Singh, R., P. Soni, P. Kumar, S. Purohit, & A. Singh. (2009). Biodegradation of high explosive production 

effluent containing RDX and HMX by dentrifying bacteria. World Journal of Microbiology and 

Biotechnology, 25, 269–275. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-79

3.2 References 

Smith, S. H., & 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. 

Spargo, B. J. (2007, June 1, 2007). [Chaff end cap and piston bouyancy]. 

Spargo, B. J., T. L. Hullar, S. L. Fales, H. F. Hemond, P. Koutrakis, W. H. Schlesinger, & J. G. Watson. 

(1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff. Naval Research Laboratory. 

State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection. (2006). 2006 Integrated Water Quality 

Monitoring and Assessment Report DEPLW0817. 

Summers, J. K., T. L. Wade, V. D. Engle, & Z. A. Malaeb. (1996). Normalization of metal conentrations in 

estuarine sediments from the Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries, 19(581–594). 

Sverdrup, H., M. Johnson, & R. Fleming. (1970). The Oceans: Their Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. New 

Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. 

Teuten, E. L., S. J. Rowland, T. S. Galloway, & R. C. Thompson. (2007). Potential for plastics to transport 

hydrophobic contaminants. Environmental Science and Technology, 41, 7759–7764. 

Thompson, B., A. R. Melwani, & 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. C., Y. Olsen, R. P. Mitchell, A. Davis, S. J. Rowland, A. W. G. John, D. McGonigle, & A. E. 

Russell. (2004). Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science, 304(5672), 838. 

Tomlinson, M. S., & E. H. De Carlo. (2016). Occurrence and possible sources of arsenic in seafloor 

sediments surrounding sea-disposed munitions and chemical agents near Oʻahu, Hawaii. Deep 

Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 

Turner, R. E., & 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. Langley Air Force Base, VA: U.S. Air Force 

Headquarters Air Combat Command. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2009). Programmatic environmental impact statement for oyster 

restoration in Chesapeake Bay including the use of a native or non-native oyster. Norfolk, VA. 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. (2004). An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Washington, DC 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1993). Soil Survey Manual. In Soil Conservation Service (Ed.), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. 

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. 

U.S. Department of the Air Force. (1997). Environmental effects of self-protection chaff and flares (pp. 

241). Langley Air Force Base, VA: U.S. Department of the Air Force. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2006). Final Environmental Assessment San Clemente Island Wastewater 

Treatment Plant Increase in Maximum Allowable Discharge Volume. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-80

3.2 References 

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 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010a). JAX OPAREA USWTR Bottom Mapping and Habitat 

Characterization, Florida. Final Cruise Report. Norfolk, Virginia: Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Atlantic. 

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). Water Range Assessment for the VACAPES Range Complex. (Final 

Report). Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division. 

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). NAVFAC. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013a). 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: Department of the Navy, United 

States Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, Virginia. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013b). Water Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment, 

Potomac River Test Range Complex. Dahlgren, VA. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013c). Water Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment: 

Potomac River Test Range. Dahlgren, VA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008a). Chapter 3: Northeast National Estuary Program coastal 

condition, Long Island Sound Study. In National Estuary Program coastal condition report. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008b). Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory For Perchlorate. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008c). National coastal condition report III. Washington, DC: 

Office of Research and Development, Office of Water. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. 

Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ost/criteria/wqctable/. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012a). EPA Federal Facilities Forum Issue Paper: Site 

Characterization for Munitions Constituents. (EPA/505/S-11/001). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012b). National Coastal Condition Report IV. 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. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010. (EPA 841-R15-006). Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resourcesurveys/ncca. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-81

3.2 References 

U.S. Geological Society. (2005). The impact of sediment on the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. 

University of Hawaii. (2010). Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions Assessment, Final Investigation Report 

HI-05, South of Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii (pp. 100): 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, D. E. Chestnut, 

W. McDermott, M. H. Fulton, E. Wirth, & 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., & 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, & 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. (2010). Virginia water quality assessment. 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated report. Richmond, VA. 

Virginia Department of Public Health. (2016). Fish Consumption Advisories. Retrieved February 13, 

2016, from 

http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/DEE/PublicHealthToxicology/Advisories/Chesapeake

.htm

Wade, T. L., E. L. Atlas, J. M. Brooks, M. C. Kennicutt, II, R. G. Fox, J. Sericano, B. Garcis-Romero, & D. 

DeFreitas. (1988). NOAA Gulf of Mexico status and trends program: Trace organic contaminant 

distribution in sediments and oysters. Estuaries, 11(3), 171–179. 

Wade, T. L., & S. T. Sweet. (2005). Assessment of sediment contamination in Casco Bay. 

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, & J. Hawari. (2006). Mineraliztion of 2, 4, 6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) in 

Coastal Waters and Sediments. Naval Research Laboratory. 

Wallace, G. T., Jr., G. L. Hoffman, & 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, & 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. from https://www.washingtontribes.org/tribes-map
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.2-82

3.2 References 

Waters, D. F., C. P. Cadou, & W. E. Eagle. (2013). Quantifying Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Range 

Improvement Enabled by Aluminum–Water Power System. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 

29(3), 675-685. 

Watters, D. L., M. M. Yoklavich, M. S. Love, & 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, & W. Dennison. (2004). State of the 

Maryland Coastal Bays. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland coastal bays 

Program, and University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. 

Whitall, D., A. Pait, & 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. 

Windom, H. L., S. J. Schropp, F. D. Calder, J. D. Ryan, R. G. Smith, Jr., L. C. Burney, F. G. Lewis, & 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., & R. W. Garvine. (1995). Plumes and coastal currents near large river mouths. 

Estuaries, 18(3), 509–517. 

Wren, P. A., & 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, 43–56. 

Wright, S. L., R. C. Thompson, & T. S. Galloway. (2013). The physical impacts of microplastics on marine 

organismis: A review. Environmental Pollution, 178, 1–10. 

Wu, J., & E. A. Boyle. (1997). Lead in the western north Atlantic ocean: Completed response to leaded 

gasoline phaseout. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 61(15), 3279–3283. 

Wurl, O., & 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, & J. Hawari. (2004a). Bidodegradation 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 oligotrphic conditions. Canadian 

Journal of Microbiology, 50, 91–96. 

Zhao, J. S., J. Spain, S. Thiboutot, G. Ampleman, C. Greer, & 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

i 

Table of Contents

Draft 

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 .................... 3.3-10

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.3-19

3.3.3.1 Acoustic Stressors ............................................................................. 3.3-20

3.3.3.2 Explosive Stressors ............................................................................ 3.3-20

3.3.3.3 Energy Stressors ................................................................................ 3.3-26

3.3.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ........................................ 3.3-26

3.3.3.5 Entanglement Stressors .................................................................... 3.3-43

3.3.3.6 Ingestion Stressors ............................................................................ 3.3-43

3.3.3.7 Secondary Stressors .......................................................................... 3.3-43

3.3.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Vegetation .................................................. 3.3-44

3.3.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 .................. 3.3-45

3.3.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 .................. 3.3-46

3.3.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ........................................................................................ 3.3-46

3.3.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations .......................................................... 3.3-46

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 .................................................. 3.3-16

Figure 3.3-3: Seagrass Occurrence in South Florida ............................................................................. 3.3-17

Figure 3.3-4: Seagrass Occurrence in the Gulf of Mexico ..................................................................... 3.3-18
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables 

Table 3.3-1: Major Groups of Vegetation in Study Area ....................................................................... 3.3-10

Table 3.3-2: Presences of Seagrass Species within the Study Area ...................................................... 3.3-15

Table 3.3-3: Presence of Mangrove Species in the Study Area ............................................................ 3.3-19
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 inland 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 Department of the 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: Acoustic stressors are not applicable to vegetation due to the lack of hearing 

capabilities of vegetation and are not 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).

 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.

 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 sedentary nature 

of vegetation and is not analyzed further in this section.

 Ingestion: Ingestion stressors are not applicable because all vegetation in the study area uses 

photosynthesis and does not ingest, 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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, 

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, 2013a; Levinton, 2013b): 

 Diatoms dominate the phytoplankton at high latitudes. They are single-celled organisms with 

shells made of silica, which sometimes form chains of cells. 

 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-3 

3.3 Vegetation

 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, 2013c). 

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 floatation 

(Levinton, 2013c). 

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. 

 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. 

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, 2013c; 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, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-4 

3.3 Vegetation

accumulations of Sargassum along the Gulf of Mexico coast of the southern U.S. have led to 

eutrophication, fish die-offs, and have negatively affected local economies (Doyle & Franks, 2015). 

Vascular plants in the Study Area include seagrasses, cordgrasses, and mangroves, all of which have 

more limited distributions than algae (which are non-vascular), and typically occur in intertidal or 

shallow (< 40 feet [ft.]) subtidal waters (Green & Short, 2003). 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). 

Emergent wetland vegetation of the Study Area is typically dominated by cordgrasses (Spartina spp.), 

which form dense colonies in salt marshes that develop in temperate areas in protected, low-energy 

environments on soft substrate, along the intertidal portions of coastal lagoons, tidal creeks or rivers, or 

estuaries, wherever the sediment is adequate to support plant root development (Levinton, 2013e; 

Mitsch et al., 2009). 

Mangroves and cordgrasses have similar requirements, but mangroves are not tolerant of freezing 

temperatures. Their occurrence on the Atlantic coast of the U.S. 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., 

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, 2013a). 

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 (Stedman & Dahl, 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). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-5 

3.3 Vegetation

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 off-shore drilling and 

oil tanker leaks) are some of the major sources of pollution in the marine environment (Levinton, 

2013d). 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 (Hoff et al., 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). 

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 inland waters can erode shorelines and fringing wetlands that would otherwise be 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-6 

3.3 Vegetation

relatively stable (Fonseca & Malhorta, 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 

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, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-7 

3.3 Vegetation

displacing a variety of emergent wetland plants and altering the structure and function of marsh 

communities (Levinton, 2013a). 

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 

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 not a threat to vegetation. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-8 

3.3 Vegetation

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): 

 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 disjunct 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 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 nautical miles (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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-10

3.3 Vegetation

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). 

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

Inland 

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
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-11

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

Inland 

Waters

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

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). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-12

3.3 Vegetation

Blue-green algae are an important food source for both zooplankton (free-floating animals) and grazing 

organisms (e.g., mollusks: chitons and limpets) on the seafloor. Blue-green algae occur in all large 

marine ecosystems, open ocean areas, and inland 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 inland waters of the Study Area. 

Photosynthetic dinoflagellate symbionts (zooxanthellase) 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, 2013d). 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, 2013d). 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. 

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 bluish-white 

reflection that may cover thousands of square miles (Levinton, 2013a). 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-13

3.3 Vegetation

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. 

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, 2013a). 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 (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2014). See Sections 3.6 (Fishes), 3.7 (Marine Mammals), 3.8 (Reptiles), and 3.9 (Birds), 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-14

3.3 Vegetation

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 

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 inland waters of the Study Area (Adey & 

Hayek, 2011; Levinton, 2013a). 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-15

3.3 Vegetation

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). Depth limits for seagrasses in inland 

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 inland 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) 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-16

3.3 Vegetation

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area 

Figure 3.3-2: Seagrass Occurrence in Mid Atlantic and New England 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-17

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-18

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-19

3.3 Vegetation

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 marsh 

species are salt-tolerant, moderate-weather (temperate) species and an integral component of salt 

marsh vegetation. 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).

Salt and brackish marshes are the dominant coastal wetland types along much of the Atlantic and Gulf 

Coasts of the U.S. 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 inland waters along 

soft shorelines, mostly outside of the Study Area, e.g., upstream in tidal creeks and on the upper part of 

the shore (detailed maps are provided in the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment). 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 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-20

3.3 Vegetation

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. Mitigation for 

vegetation will be coordinated with NMFS through the consultation processes. 

3.3.3.1 Acoustic Stressors 

Acoustic stressors are not applicable to vegetation because of the lack of hearing capabilities of 

vegetation 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 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. 

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, 2013a) 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 take 

longer to recover from physical disturbance than macroalgae, but there are a relatively low number of 

explosions on or near the bottom where they co-occur. The only mapped seagrass occurring where 

underwater explosions are proposed is in the Key West Range Complex. Neither the ESA-listed species 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-21

3.3 Vegetation

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 

of 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 

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-

18) 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 low number of explosions planned in areas where seagrasses grow, i.e. estuaries, 

lagoons, and bays (Phillips & Meñez, 1988).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-22

3.3 Vegetation

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 

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 overlap 

between explosive footprints and the distribution of attached macroalgae or seagrasses. 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 result is also to minimize the potential for damage to Sargassum. 

Based on Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Table F-34), it is 

estimated that over the 5-year period, a total of approximately 45 ac of bottom habitat would be 

impacted by explosive fragments associated with training activities under Alternative 1. Ninety 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-23

3.3 Vegetation

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 

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. around 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 total impact footprint of the planned underwater explosions on bottom habitats in the Key West 

Range Complex is estimated as only 0.24 ac under Alternative 1 for training activities (Appendix F 

[Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Table F-32]). This is a small area 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 proximity of seagrass to shallow coral reefs, 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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-24

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 lbs 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 lbs net explosive weight), while small ship shock trials could use charges up to source class E16 

(7,250 - 14,500 lbs 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, explosives use 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-35), it is 

estimated that over the 5-year period, a total of approximately 71 ac of bottom habitat would be 

impacted by explosive fragments associated with testing activities under Alternative 1. Eighty-three 

percent of the area impacted would be soft-bottom habitat and thus have no effect on vegetation. The 

impacted area of hard and intermediate 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 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-25

3.3 Vegetation

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. around 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, 

precious coral beds, 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), 

although explosives would be used for testing activities in the Key West Range Complex under 

Alternative 1 (Tables 3.0-26 and 3.0-27). 

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. The Navy will consult with 

the NMFS, as required by Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

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-34]). 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 will 

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-30]). Based on proportional impacts as calculated in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and 

Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Table F-35), it is estimated that over the 5-year period, approximately 

80 ac of bottom habitat would be impacted by explosive fragments associated with testing activities 

under Alternative 2, versus 71 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. 

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 2 (Appendix F [Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analysis], Table F-25). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-26

3.3 Vegetation

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will 

have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated critical habitat. The Navy will consult with the 

NMFS, as required by Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

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 physical effects 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 on vegetation within the 

Study Area. For a list of Navy training and testing activities that involve these stressors refer to Tables B1 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 strike and disturbance 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.

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-27

3.3 Vegetation

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 inland 

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 landing 

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). 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-28

3.3 Vegetation

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 3.0-17 - 3.0-22 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 

testing and training 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 31,215 annual 

training activities, as described in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices). Most activities 

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 inland waters (Tables 3.0-17 and 3.0-18). 

Vessel use would occur elsewhere throughout the Study Area but at much lower frequency. A large 

proportion of the vessel activity in the inland waters consists of small craft (less than 50 ft.) which often 

travel at high speed (greater than 10 knots) (Tables 3.0-18 and 3.0-19). 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-29

3.3 Vegetation

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 inland 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 near shore, 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 

Mayport Naval Station 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. 

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.

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.

The net impact of vessels on attached macroalgae and seagrass should be reduced based on standard 

operating procedures that discourage directly impacting the bottom, and the minimal potential for 

disturbance to resilient seaweeds from propulsion systems operating near the bottom. Seagrasses are 

more vulnerable to localized damage from propellers where inland 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 

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. 

In-Water Devices 

The use of in-water devices for training under Alternative 1 would occur during up to 6,894 annual 

activities. Activities would be concentrated in the Virginia Capes Range Complex with up to 3,809 

activities annually, over half of the total for Alternative 1. The Jacksonville Range Complex would 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-30

3.3 Vegetation

support up to 1,357 (20 percent of total) activities annually, whereas the Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complex would support up to 819 (12 percent of total) activities annually. Other parts of the Study Area 

would be used less frequently (Tables 3.0-21 and 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 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. 

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.

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. 

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 6,298 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 

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 3.0-17 and 3.0-18). 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-31

3.3 Vegetation

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. 

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.

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. 

In-Water Devices 

The use of in-water devices for testing under Alternative 1 would occur during up to 5,370 annual 

activities. Activities would be concentrated in the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport and Naval 

Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division Testing Ranges, these two locations accounting for 62 

percent of all activities (Tables 3.0-21 and 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.

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. 

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.

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-32

3.3 Vegetation

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. 

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 would increase by roughly 1 percent (Tables 3.0-17 and 3.0-18). 

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 would increase by roughly 1 percent (Table 3.0-21). 

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 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 would decrease by roughly 0.5 percent (Table 3.0-17 and 3.0-18). 

Taking into account this small incremental reduction 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) 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-33

3.3 Vegetation

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 

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with in-water device use for testing 

activities would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.3.4.1 (Combined Impacts of 

All Stressors Under Alternative 1) and Section 3.3.4.2 (Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under 

Alternative 2) for a discussion of impacts on vegetation. 

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. 

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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-34

3.3 Vegetation

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 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, and most of those would 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-29 and F-30]; see also Figure 3.5-14). These circumstances limit kelp 

exposure to this stressor, although practice munitions are likely to fall on hard bottom that supports 

kelp. 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 MEM, but the vegetation is fast growing and resilient to physical 

disturbance (Mach et al., 2007). 

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., small 

caliber 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 

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) and 

3.3-3. Seagrass also occurs in relatively close proximity to testing ranges where expended materials 

would be generated, including the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Testing Range and South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility (Figures 3.3-2 and 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 many inland training locations such as Chesapeake Bay. The impacts of military expended 

materials falling on seagrass beds are minimized by the flexible/fluid nature of seagrass blades and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-35

3.3 Vegetation

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, small 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 

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, 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 (Entanglement Stressors). Seagrass may overlap with the 

use of some types of decelerators/parachutes in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem in the Key 

West Range Complex. Sargassum and other mmarine algae could occur in any of the locations where 

these materials are expended.

Targets. Many training and testing activities use targets. Targets that are hit by munitions could break 

into fragments, whereas targets such as Expendable Mobile Anti-Submarine Training Targets 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-36

3.3 Vegetation

(Table 3.0-27) that are expended without being hit 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 that 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 

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-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 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-32,

it is estimated that annually, approximately 7 ac of hard bottom habitat, 6 ac of intermediate bottom 

habitat, 63 ac of soft-bottom habitat, and 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 inland training 

areas. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-37

3.3 Vegetation

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 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, 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials produced by training 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated 

critical habitat. 

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 

(Table 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-29 and F-31) 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-33, 

it is estimated that annually, approximately 7 ac of hard bottom habitat, 7 ac of intermediate bottom 

habitat, 52 ac of soft-bottom habitat, and less than 1 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 inland training 

areas. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-38

3.3 Vegetation

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. 

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. 

For the reasons discussed above, 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-28 and F30) the footprints of military expended materials associated with training under Alternative 2 would be 

essentially the same (within rounding to tenths of an acre) as those of Alternative 1 as described 

previously, the only difference being 1 ac more of soft bottom impact over 5 years. The slight increase in 

soft bottom impact would occur predominantly within the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex 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 stress 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-39

3.3 Vegetation

Alternative 1, would not affect the distribution, abundance, or productivity of vegetation, have 

population-level effects, or affect the distribution, abundance, or productivity of vegetation. 

For the reasons discussed above, 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-29 and F31) the footprints of military expended materials associated with testing under Alternative 2 would be 

nearly identical to those of Alternative 1, with less than 1 percent difference annually or over the 5-year 

period in acreage affected in any habitat category, range complex or testing range. 

Activities under Alternative 2 would occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, and 

physical disturbance and strike stress 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 

Alternative 1 and would not affect the distribution, abundance, or productivity of vegetation or have 

population-level effects. 

For the reasons discussed above, 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 3.0-34 and 3.0-35) 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. Mines 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 drop on seaweed, there would be a temporary 

impact while the anchor is present and thereafter, before regrowth. Mines shapes would likely not be 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-40

3.3 Vegetation

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 

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 Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—predominantly within the Virginia Capes, 

Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes; and in many inland water 

locations but predominantly in lower Chesapeake Bay, Narragansett Bay, the James River and 

Tributaries (Virginia), Cooper River (South Carolina), Mayport (Florida), and York River (Virginia) (Tables 

3.0-34 and 3.0-35). 

As detailed in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Tables F-10, F11, F-13), 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 seafloor devices is limited and suspended sediments would settle in a few 

hours. The only training use of seafloor devices that may potentially overlap with seagrass in the Study 

Area involves bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles used in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine 

Ecosystem in the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range, St. Andrew Bay, 

Florida. 

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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-41

3.3 Vegetation

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 ft., 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 

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. 

For the reasons discussed above, pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during training 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on Johnson’s seagrass or its designated 

critical habitat. 

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 Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing 

Range, Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-42

3.3 Vegetation

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. 

For the reasons discussed above, 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.

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 nearly identical, in terms 

of locations and number of activities, to those occurring under Alternative 1 (refer to Tables 3.0-34 and 

3.0-35). As detailed in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analysis, Tables 

F-10, F-11, F-13), the overwhelming majority of bottom-placed devices used in training activities are 

recovered mine shapes. The total number of activities using seafloor devices would increase by 80 (0.1 

percent) over the course of 5 years under Alternative 2, most of the difference being in the more 

frequent use of inland waters under Alternative 2 (60 more events over the course of 5 years than under 

Alternative 1) (Tables 3.0-34 and 3.0-35). Activities at some locations (e.g., Port Canaveral) may have a 

greater potential to overlap seagrass beds (Figure 3.3-3). As discussed under Alternative 1, these 

activities would have localized, temporary impacts. With the relatively infrequent use of bay and harbor 

locations under both alternatives, the difference in impacts between Alternatives 1 and 2 would be 

minor and inconsequential. 

For the reasons discussed above 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 5 

percent over the 5-year period under Alternative 2 (refer to Table 3.0-34). The difference is due to the 

greater number of activities under Alternative 2 in the Virginia Capes Range Complex and at NSWC 

Panama City Testing Range. Neither location overlaps the distribution of the ESA-listed Johnson’s 

seagrass, so there would be no difference between alternatives in the effect to this species. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-43

3.3 Vegetation

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. 

For the reasons discussed above, 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 

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 due to the photosynthetic nature of 

vegetation and 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-44

3.3 Vegetation

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 and can create 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. Because of these conditions, population-level impacts on 

marine vegetation are likely to not be detectable and therefore inconsequential. 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 much 

less than 0.01 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 would be relatively minor and 

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 sub sections, 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 occur primarily within the range complexes and 

testing ranges associated with the Study Area. The Navy identified and analyzed five physical 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-45

3.3 Vegetation

disturbance or strike substressors that have potential to impact vegetation: vessel strikes, in-water 

device strikes, military expended material strikes, seafloor device strikes, and use of explosives. Vessels 

and in-water devices may impact vegetation by striking or disturbing vegetation on the sea surface or 

seafloor. Marie 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 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 short-term nature of 

most activities and local disturbances of the surface water, with some temporary increase in suspended 

sediment in shallow areas. 

Activities described in this EIS/OEIS that have potential impacts on vegetation are widely dispersed, 

affecting a very small portion of the vegetation Study Area at any given time. The stressors that have 

potential impacts on marine vegetation include physical disturbances or strikes (vessels and in-water 

devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices, and explosives) and secondary. Unlike mobile 

organisms, vegetation cannot flee from stressors once exposed. The major taxonomic groups comprising 

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, explosives, and seafloor devices). 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 off-shore 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 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-46

3.3 Vegetation

inland 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 Key 

West 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, explosives, and seafloor devices). 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. 

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 Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-47

3.3 References

References 

Adey, W. H., & 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, & K. Maers. (2012). Ocean 

acidification and the loss of phenolic substances in marine plants. PLoS ONE, 7(4), e35107–

e35107. 

Bedinger, L. A., S. S. Bell, & 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, & E. L. Jackson. (2016). Growth effects of shading and 

sedimentation in two tropical seagrass species: Implications for port management and impact 

assessment. Elsevier, 1–10. 

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, & 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., & 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, & A. W. Stoner. (1983). Studies of Sargassum and the 

Sargassum Community: Bermuda Biological Station for Research, Inc. 

Byrnes, J. E., D. C. Reed, B. J. Cardinale, K. C. Cavanaugh, S. J. Holbrooks, & 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, & R. Anadon. (2013). Phytoplankton Growth and Microzooplankton 

Grazing in the Subtropical Northeast Atlantic. PLoS ONE, 8(7). 

Castro, P., & M. E. Huber. (2000). Marine prokaryotes, protists, fungi, and plants Marine Biology (3rd 

ed., pp. 83–103). McGraw-Hill. 

Coelho, C., R. Silva, F. Veloso-Gomes, & 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, & F. A. Cross. (1991). Utilization of the Sargassum habitat by 

marine invertebrates and vertebrates—A review. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

Crain, C. M., B. S. Halpern, M. W. Beck, & 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, UK: Blackwell Publishing. 

Creed, J. C., R. C. Phillips, & 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, & C. M. Reddy. (2008). Long-term consequences of 

residual petroleum on salt marsh grass. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(4), 1284–1292. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-48

3.3 References

Dawes, C. J., J. Andorfer, C. Rose, C. Uranowski, & 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, & R. Batiuk. (1993). 

Assessing Water Quality with Submersed Aquatic Vegetation. 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, & L. D. 

Talley. (2012). Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science, 

4(1), 11–37. 

Doyle, E., & J. Franks. (2015). Sargassum Fact Sheet. In G. a. C. F. Institute (Ed.). 

Egan, B., & C. Yarish. (1988). The distbution of the genus Laminaria (Phaeophyta) at its southern limit in 

the western Atlantic Ocean. Botanica Marina, 31, 155–161. 

Egan, B., & 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., & 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, & G. Moore. (2007a). Avicennia germinans. International Union for 

Conservation of Nature 2010. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of 

Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/178811/0 

Ellison, A., E. Farnsworth, & G. Moore. (2007b). Rhizophora mangle. International Union for 

Conservation of Nature 2010. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of 

Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/178851/0 

Ellison, A., E. Farnsworth, & G. Moore. (2007c). Laguncularia racemosa. International Union for 

Conservation of Nature 2010. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of 

Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. 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, & M. C. Ball. (2010). Biocomplexity in 

mangrove ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science, 2(1), 395–417. 

Ferguson, R. L., & L. L. Wood. (1994). Rooted Vascular Beds in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System. 

Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2010a). Seagrasses. Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2010b). Site-Specific Information in Support of 

Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for St. Andrew Bay Florida. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. (2012). Marine 

Resources Geographic Information System. Retrieved from 

http://ocean.floridamarine.org/mrgis/ 

Fonseca, M., & A. Malhorta. (2012). Boat wakes and their influence on erosion in the Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina. Beaufort, NC. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-49

3.3 References

Fonseca, M. S., W. J. Kenworthy, & G. W. Thayer. (1998). Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration 

of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters. (NOAA'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, & 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, & 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, & G. Page. (2005). Global 

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise: Potential Losses of Intertidal Habitat for Shorebirds. 

Garrison, T. (2004). Essentials of Oceanography (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomas 

Learning. 

Gower, J., C. Hu, G. Borstad, & 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., & S. King. (2008). Satellite images show the movement of floating Sargassum in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. Nature Precedings. 

Gower, J., E. Young, & S. King. (2013). Satellite images suggest a new Sargassum source region in 2011. 

Remote Sensing Letters, 4(8), 764–773. 

Green, E. P., & F. T. Short. (2003). World Atlas of Seagrasses (pp. 298). 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. 

Gulf of Mexico Program. (2004). Seagrass Habitat in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Degradation, 

Conservation and Restoration of a Valuable Resource. (855-R-04-001). 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., 

& S. L. Willaims. (2006). The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology 

letters, 9, 228–242. 

Hayes, M. O., R. Hoff, J. Michel, D. Scholz, & 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. 

Hayes, P. K., N. A. El Semary, & 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, & R. J. Orth. (2003). Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass 

meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 253, 123–136. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-50

3.3 References

Hemminga, M. A., & C. M. Duarte. (2000). Seagrasses in the human environment Seagrass Ecology (pp. 

248–291). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Hoff, R., P. Hensel, E. C. Proffitt, P. Delgado, G. Shigenaka, R. Yender, R. Hoff, & A. J. Mearns. (2002). Oil 

Spills in Mangroves: Planning & Response Considerations. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Service, Office of 

Response and Restoration. 

Kenworthy, W. J., M. J. Durako, S. M. R. Fatemy, H. Valavi, & 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., & 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: maribus gGmbH. 

Levinton, J. (2013a). Plankton Marine Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology (4th ed., pp. 141–162). 

New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Levinton, J. (2013b). Benthic microorganisms, seaweeds, and sea grasses Marine Biology: Function, 

Biodiversity, Ecology (4th ed., pp. 242–253). New York: Oxford University Press. 

Levinton, J. (2013c). Seaweeds Marine Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology (4th ed., pp. 246–252). 

New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Levinton, J. (2013d). Environmental impacts of industrial activities and human populations Marine 

Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology (4th ed., pp. 492–516). New York, NY: Oxford University 

Press. 

Levinton, J. S. (2013e). Marine Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology (Fourth ed.). New York, New York: 

Oxford University Press. 

Liu, H., M. Chen, F. Zhu, & 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. In C. Yarish & H. 

Kirkman (Eds.), (pp. 527). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Mach, K. J., B. B. Hale, M. W. Denny, & D. V. Nelson. (2007). Death by small forces: A fracture and fatigue 

analysis of wave-swept macroalgae. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210(13). 

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). 

Marret, F., & K. A. F. Zonneveld. (2003). Atlas of modern organic-walled dinoflagellate cyst distribution. 

Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 125(1–2), 1–200. 

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, & R. M. Viejo. (2012). Physical factors driving intertidal 

macroalgae distribution: physiological stress of a dominant fucoid at its southern limit. 

Oecologia. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-51

3.3 References

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. (2013). Non-Native Seaweed in Massachusetts. 

Boston, MA. 

Mathieson, A. C., C. J. Dawes, E. J. Hehre, & 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. Food & Agriculture Organization. 

Mearns, A. J., D. J. Reish, P. S. Oshida, T. Ginn, & M. A. Rempel-Hester. (2011). Effects of Pollution on 

Marine Organisms. Water Environment Research, 83(10), 1789–1852. 

Michel, J., & N. Rutherford. (2013). Oil Spills in Marshes: Planning and Response Considerations. 

Mitsch, W. J., J. G. Gosselink, C. J. Anderson, & L. Zhang. (2009). Wetland Ecosystems. Hoboken, NJ: John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Narragansett Bay Estuary Program. (2010). Rhode Island's Coastal Habitats. Coastal Resources 

Management Council. 

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). National Marine 

Fisheries Service Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/plants/johnsonsseagrass.htm. 

Endangered and Threatened Species: Critical Habitat for the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Loggerhead Sea 

Turtle Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and Determination Regarding Critical Habitat for the 

North Pacific Ocean Loggerhead DPS; Final Rule (2014). 

National Ocean Service. (2015, January 5). How far does light travel in the ocean? , Retrieved from 

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/light_travel.html 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2011). State of the Coasts. Retrieved from 

http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/glossary.html 

National Research Council. (2007). Mitigating Shore Erosion Along Sheltered Coasts. Washington, D.C.: 

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, & 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, & S. Williams. (2006). A Global Crisis for Seagrass 

Ecosystems. Bioscience, 56(12), 987–996. 

Orth, R., S. Marion, K. Moore, & 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., & 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, & A. Burke. (2007). Shoreline effects of vessel wakes, Marlborough Sounds, 

New Zealand. Journal of Coastal Research(Special Issue 50), 502–506. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-52

3.3 References

Peckol, P., & 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., & J. Ramus. (1988). Abundances and physiological properties of deepwater seaweeds from 

Carolina outer continental shelf. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 115(1), 

25–40. 

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., & E. G. Meñez. (1988). Seagrasses. Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences, 34, 

104. 

Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, & D. Scavia. (2002). Beyond science into policy: Gulf of Mexico hyposiz and 

the Mississippi River. Bioscience, 52(2). 

Roskov, Y., L. Abucay, T. Orrell, D. Nicolson, T. Kunze, A. Culham, N. Bailly, P. Kirk, T. Bourgoin, R. E. 

DeWalt, W. Decock, & A. De Weaver. (2015). Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 2015 Annual 

Checklist. [Digital Resource]. ISSN 2405-8858. Retrieved July 6, 2015 

http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2015/ 

Ruggiero, M., & 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. 

Sargent, F. J., T. J. Leary, D. W. Crewz, & C. R. Kruer. (1995). Scarring of Florida's Seagrasses: Assessment 

and Management Options. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Schiel, D. R., J. R. Steinbeck, & M. S. Foster. (2004). Ten years of induced ocean warming causes 

comprehensive changes in marine benthic communities. Ecology, 85(7), 1833–1839. 

Schoener, A., & 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, & 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 Coucil. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (2002). Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Sargassum 

Habitat of the South Atlantic Region. Second Revised Final. Including a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, & Social 

Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (2009). Fishery Ecosystem Plan of the South Atlantic Region: 

South Atlantic Habitats and Species. Charleston, SC: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

Spalding, M., M. Taylor, C. Ravilious, F. Short, & 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. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-53

3.3 References

Stedman, S., & T. Dahl. (2008). Status and trends of wetlands in the coastal watersheds of the Eastern 

United States 1998 to 2004. 

Steneck, R. S., M. H. Graham, B. J. Bourque, D. Corbett, J. M. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, & M. J. Tegner. 

(2002). Kelp forest ecosystems: Biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environmental 

Conservation, 29(4), 436–459. 

Stevenson, J., C. Piper, & N. Confer. (1979). Decline of Submerged Plants in Chesapeake Bay. Retrieved 

from https://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/savpage.htm. 

Stevenson, J., L. Staver, & K. Staver. (1993). Water Quality Associated With Survival of Submersed 

Aquatic Vegetation Along an Estuarine Gradient. Estuaries, 16(2), 346–361. 

Steward, J., & 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, & B. Silliman. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of Seaweed Impacts on Seagrasses: Generalities 

and Knowledge Gaps. PLoS ONE, 7(1), 1–8. 

Trono, G., & 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, & 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. Geological Survey. (2003). Predicting Future Mangrove Forest Migration in the Everglades Under 

Rising Sea Level. (FS-030-03). 

U.S. National Response Team. (2010). What are the Effects of Oil on Seagrass? : U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IV 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, & 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, & 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., & 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, & 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., & J. G. Gosselink. (1992). The Fragile Fringe: Coastal Wetlands of the Continental United 

States. Washington, DC: United States Dept. of the Interior, 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, & S. L. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.3-54

3.3 References

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., & 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., & 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, & 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 Program for Scientific Translations.