FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 1 of 58 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WRITTEN RE

- EVALUATION,

ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AND

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND RECORD OF DECISION

FOR

Mariana Islands Range Complex Airspace

1. INTRODUCTION

This document serves as the F ederal Aviation Administration (FAA) adoption of the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC) Airspace Environmental Assessment (EA) /Overseas Environmental Assessment (OEA) prepared by the Department of Navy (Navy).

Pursuant to section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] Parts 1500

- 1508) implementing the proc edural provisions of NEPA, Executive Order (EO) 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions , and Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1C CH

- 1, the United States (U.S.) Navy. The EA/OEA also complies with FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix A (Analysis of Environmental Impact Categories).

FAA Order 1050.1E was in effect when the Navy completed the EA/OEA. P er FAA Order 1050.1 E, Paragraph 402a , since the FAA did not adopt the Navy’s EA within three years, the FAA must prepare a Written Re

- Ev aluation to determine whether the consideration of alternatives, impacts, existing environment, and mitigation measures set forth in the EA remain applicable. FAA Order 1050.1E was superseded o n July 16, 2015 and replaced with FAA

Order 1050.1F , which states the procedures in 1050.1F apply to the extent practicable to ongoing activities and environmental documents begun before the effective date. T herefore,

this Written Re

- Evaluation /Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision ha ve been pre pared in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F

. The FAA’s proposed rulemaking is subject to NEPA review per FAA Order 1050.1F, Paragraph 2

- 1.1.

2

. BACKGROUND The EA/OEA analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with proposed changes to special use airspace (SUA), which includes establishment of new warning areas and the

establishment of a new restricted area (RA). The new RA will encircle the existing R

- 7201

from three nautical miles ( NM ) to 12 NM around Farallon de Medinilla (FDM) . The EA/OEA also focuses on the expansion of the Danger Zone (DZ) around FDM from 10 NM to 12 NM

.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 2 of 58 The proposed Warning Areas and the R A would provide a greater level of public health and safety by increasing the geographic extent of restrictions to a ll private and commercial aircraft during hazardous training and testing activities around FDM. The establishment of Warning Areas increases aviation safety by charting SUA, previously uncharted as A ir T raffic C ontrol Assigned Airspace.

All military activ ities that are conducted in the MIRC are either scheduled or announced at least 72 hours prior to being conducted. Any potential conflicts with civilian routes and the proposed SUA have been minimized as a result of close coordination between the Navy and the

FAA.

As the lead agency, the Navy published the EA/OEA in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) betwe en the FAA and Department of Defense (DoD), “Concerning Environmental Review of Special Use Airspace (SUA) Actions”, dated October 4, 2005

.

The Navy invited the FAA to be a cooperating agency for this project because of its expertise and regulatory authority over the National Airspace System (JO 7400.2)

. B y l e tt e r d a t e d September 6, 2007, the Navy re qu e st e d p ar ti c ip a tion f r om the F A A a s a c oo p er a ting a g e n c y ( s e e 40 C. F

. R. § 1501.6) in the p re p a r a tion of a n EIS to address the potential environmental impacts of proposed military training, research and development, and testing within the MIRC

. B y l e tt e r d a t ed October 9, 2007 , the F AA

, h a ving r e sponsibili t y f or a pp r ovi n g SUA und e r 49 U .S.C.

s ec tion 40103 ( b )( 3 )(A)

, ac c e pt e d the c oo p era ti n g a g e n c y st a tus.

The Navy released a Draft EIS /OEIS in January 2009 and a Final EIS /OEIS (FEIS) in May

2010. The Navy issued their Record of Decision ( ROD ) on July 20, 2010. FAA received the Navy’s SUA Proposal after the completion of the FEIS in which t he Navy requested 10 changes to SUA. O n August 17, 2011, FAA responded to the Navy that sufficient justification and requirements had not been identified to support the changes in the SUA proposal. FAA

determined that t wo of the 10 proposals were in feasible, and another one did not have sufficient information to determine feasibility. The refore, FAA could not issue a L etter of A doption and

Record of Decision for the F EIS due to the se outsta nding issues.

Subsequently, t he Navy decided to split the Proposed Action as described in the FEIS into four

separate Actions with four separate NEPA documents

. The MIRC EA/OEA is one of the Navy’s four separate Proposed Actions and includes the SUA subject to FAA’s approval

. Although the Navy did not formally send another cooperating agency invitation request specific to the MIRC EA/OEA, the FAA acted as a Cooperating Agency and provided comments during the development of the EA /OEA to address issues raised by FAA on the

2010 MIRC EIS/OEIS.

The Navy made no major changes to the SUA Proposal between the 2010 MIRC EIS/OEIS and

the 2013 MIRC EA/OEA , but its justification for the changes was updated and accepted by

FAA

. As described in the EA/OEA, the level of training and testing activities that would occur within the airspace and sea space remain s the same as those assessed and identified in the

MIRC EIS/ OEIS. T he Navy’s Proposed Action in th e EA/OEA does not include trainingFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 3 of 58 activities that differ in scope, nature, or location from those described in the Navy’s ROD for

the MIRC F EIS/OEIS.

2.1 Navy Public Outreach on the EA/OEA

• On December 20, 2012, the MIRC Airspace Draft EA/OEA was posted on www.MIRCairspaceEA.com. The docum ent was also made available at the following

locations: Nieves M. Flores Memorial Public Library, University of Guam Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Library, Rota Public Library

, Joeten

- Kiyu Public Library , and Tinian Public Library

.

• On January 15, 2013, a public open house regarding the Proposed Action was held on Guam at the University of Guam; on January 17, 2013, a public open house was held on Saipan at the Pedro P. Tenorio Center in Susupe. The open houses were attended by

member s of the public, elected officials or their representatives, and media.

• On February 4, 2013, the 45

- day public comment period closed. The Navy received 11 comments from individuals, elected officials, and government organizations in response to the Draft EA/OEA. Out of the 11 comments, a total of two were submitted during the open houses; the other comments were submitted using the online commenting form on the website or mailed via postal service.

o The Final EA/OEA was clarified to explain that the 12 NM Restricted Area would restrict all private and commercial (i.e. fishing) v essels from entering the area when, and only when, hazardous activities are scheduled.

o Other comments did not require any changes to the Final EA/OEA, such as noise at a commenter’s house and impacts to terrestrial endangered species, since they

issue is outside the scope of the Proposed Action.

The Navy issued their Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Finding of No Significant

Harm for the MIRC EA/OEA on June 15, 2013.

2.2 FAA Aeronautical Process 1
The aeronautical process typically takes place when the NEPA is well advanced

. The actual timing depends on the complexity of the proposed action, its location, and how many FAA facilities are affected by the proposed action. For the Proposed MIRC SUA, the FAA determined the aeronautical study wo uld be done after the Navy’s FONSI was issued.

The FAA had to delay the aeronautical study due to insufficient flight track data to complete the safety analyses. There was insufficient flight track data because r adar coverage to collect flight

track data for Guam and its surrounding airspace is limited due to terrain. To thoroughly assess the aeronautical impacts of the Proposed Action to air traffic operations, the FAA developed a flight track model to analyze flight path trajectories for arrivals and dep artures into A.B Won Pat International Airport on Guam. The modelled flight track data was developed as part of the preparation to complete the aeronautical study for the Proposed Action. The flight track modeling was not started until after the Navy issue d their FONSI.

1 FAA Joint Order 7400.2, Appendix 4. FAA Procedures for Processing SUA Actions describes how the steps of the FAA aeronautical and environmental processes overlap.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 4 of 58 Once the flight track data was modeled , a s part of the FAA aeronautical process specific to the

EA/OEA , the Guam Combined/Center Radar Approach Control ( CERAP) completed a n aeronautical study of the proposal in February 2015 . Per its assessment, changes to the proposed Warning Area 13 were made to reduce the impact to civil ian traffic. The aeronautical study did not propose any changes to the boundaries of Warning Areas 11 and 12 and R

- 7201A.

During the process ing for R

- 7201 A , the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulema king in the Federal Register (80 FR 51498 ) on August 25 , 201 5 .The Docket nu mber of the proposal is FAA

2015

- 0739 and Airspace Docket No. 14

- AWP

- 11. The comment period expired on October 9

, 201 5 , and no comments were received

. O n September 15, 2015, the FAA issued a circularization for public comment for Warning Areas 11, 12, and 13 with Docket No 15

- AWP

- 4NR

. No

comments were received.

A Safety Risk Management Panel met on May 4, 2016 to assess the proposed change to the national airspace and associated hazards. Comments received as part of the NPRM and NFDD are typically considered during a SRM meeting, but since no comments were received, no comments had to be considered as part of the meeting. The members of the group agreed that the SUA expansion will enhance safety since charting increases SUA transparency and heightens communications and awareness for domestic and international airspace users. A Memorandum summarizing the Panel’s conclusions was issued June 10, 2016.

The FAA used the EA/OEA in its rulemaking for designation of restricted airspace and non

rulemaking processes for designations of warning areas to the airspace. FAA’s Airspace Policy Group is responsible for processing the special use airspace that overlies U.S. territories and possessions. Non

- rulemaking airspaces are Military Operations Areas and warning areas.

The environmental review process by the FAA was sufficiently coordinated with the airspace analysis to have a consistenc y in the proposal and environmental impacts over the proposed

areas.

2.3

. Written Re

- Evaluation ( WR ) Since the Navy issued their FONSI on June 15, 2013, more than three years has elapsed , the FAA must prepare a WR of the relevant portion of the Navy’s EA/OEA in accordance with per FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 8

- 2.b . The purpose of a WR is to determine whether the MIRC EA/OEA remains valid or a new or supplemental environmental document is required.

As part of this WR, FAA found that the Navy’s Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT)

EIS/OEIS , issued in May 2015, assumes the proposed SUA from the MIRC EA/OEA is

established

. The MITT EIS/OEIS proposes to increase training operations , ad d testing operations, and uses additional aircraft types that were not analyzed in the 2013 MIRC EA/OEA. The impacts resulting from this increase in operations are included in the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action section below.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 5 of 58 3

. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTI ON The proposed FAA action for this WR/ FONSI

- ROD is solely t he establish ment of R A R

7201A and the Warning Areas 11, 12, and 13. The Warning Areas will replace the existing A ir

T raffic C ontrolled A ssigned A irspace s 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 5, and 6

.

3 .1 R

- 7201A Farallon De Medinilla Island

, Mariana Islands

. The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 C

. F

. R

. P art 73 to establish R

- 7 2 01A, which will

encircle R

- 7201 from three NM to 12 NM. The new RA will be located in the vicinity of the

Farallon De Medinilla Island (FDM)

, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

.

The boundary for R

- 7201A is described below:

Boundaries

. That area from a 3

- nautical mile radius outward to a 12

- nautical mile radius of lat.

16 o 01'04” N., long. 146 o 03’31” E.

Altitudes . Surface up to and including FL 600

Times of use . As scheduled by Notice to Airmen ( NOTAM ) 12 hours in advance. Controlling agency . FAA, Guam Center/Radar Approach Control. Using agency . Commander, Joint Region Marianas.

The proposed addition of R

– 7201A would be to accommodate the minimum size required for containing stand

- off weapons employment, naval gun fire training, and laser activities conducted there. The actual usage of the restricted area is estimated to be 4

– 5 days per week,

3

– 6 hours per day with 1,680 sorties per year

. 2

3 .2 Warning Areas FAA is also proposing to establish Warning Areas W

- 11A, W

- 11B, W

- 12, W

- 13A Low, W

13B Low, W

- 13C Low, W

- 13A High, W

- 13B High, and W

- 13C High . The boundaries for the Warning Areas are described below:

3 .2.1 W

- 11A Mariana Islands, G uam (GU)

. Boundaries. Beginning at latitude 12 o 50’ 00” N., longitude 145 o 00’ 00” E.;

to latitude 12 o 50’ 00” N., longitude 145 o 10’ 00” E.;

to latitude 11 o 32’ 00” N., longitude 146 o 50’ 20” E.;

to latitude 11° 32’ 00” N., longitude 145° 11’ 00” E.; to the point of beginning.

Altitudes. Surface up to and including FL 300

Times of use. As scheduled by NOTAM Controlling agency. FAA, Guam Center/Radar Approach Control Using agency. Commander, Naval Forces, Marianas Naval Station, G U

2 Department Of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, 14 CFR Part 73, [Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0739; Airspace

Docket No. 14

– AWP

– 11], RIN 2120

– AA66, Proposed Modification of Restricted, Area R

– 7201; Farallon De Medinilla Island; Mariana Islands, GU, AGE NCY: Federal Aviation, Administration (FAA), DOT, ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, (NPRM).FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 6 of 58 3 .2.2 W

- 11B Mariana Islands, GU

. Boundaries. Beginning at latitude 11 o 32’ 00” N., longitude 146 o 50’ 20” E.;

t o latitude 11 o 25’ 00” N., longitude 147 o 00’ 00” E.;

to latitude 10 o 30’ 00” N., longitude 147 o 00’ 00” E.;

to latitude 10° 30’ 00” N., longitude 145° 20’ 00” E.;

to latitude 11° 32’ 00” N., longitude 145° 11’ 00” E.; to the point of beginning.

Altitudes. Surface up to and including FL 300

Times of use. As scheduled by NOTAM Controlling agency. FAA, Guam Center/Radar Approach Control Using agency

. Commander, Naval Forces, Marianas Naval Station, G U

3 .2.3 W

- 12 Mariana Islands, GU

. Boundaries. Beginning at latitude 11 o 00’00” N., longitude 143 o 00’00” E.;

to latitude 11 o 00’00” N., longitude 144 o 45’00” E.;

to latitude 10 o 30’00” N., longitude 144 o 45’00” E.; to latitude 10°30’00” N., longitude 143°00’00” E.; to the point of beginning.

Altitudes. Surface to unlimited

Times of use. As scheduled by NOTAM Controlling agency. FAA, Guam Center/Radar Approach Control Using agency. Commander, Naval Forces, Marianas Naval Station, G U

4.2.4 W

- 13A Low Farallon De Medinilla Island

, Mariana Islands

. Boundaries. Beginning at latitude 17 ° 00’00” N., longitude 145 ° 05’00 ” E.;

to latitude 17°00’00”N., longitude 146 ° 27’40” E.,

to latitude 15 ° 25’00” N., longitude 146 ° 27’40” E.; to latitude 15°25’00” N., longitude 146°25’00” E.; to latitude 15°40’22” N., longitude 146°12’03” E.; to latitude 15°43’37” N., longitude 145°27’46” E.; to the point of beginning.

Altitudes. Surface up to and including FL 300

Times of use. As scheduled by NOTAM Controlling agency. FAA, Guam Center/Radar Approach Control Using agency. Commander, Naval Forces, Marianas Naval Station, G U

3 .2.5 W

- 13B Low Farallon De Medinilla Island

, Mariana Islands

. Boundaries. Beginning at latitude 17 ° 00 00” N., longitude 146 ° 27’40” E.;

to latitude 17 ° 00’00” N., longitude 147 ° 00’00” E.;

to latitude 16 ° 09’28” N., longitude 148 ° 09’46” E.;FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 7 of 58 to latitude 15°25’ 00” N., longitude 148°04’00” E.; to latitude 15°25’00” N., longitude 147°00’00” E.; to latitude 15°25’00” N., longitude 146°27’40” E.; to the point of beginning.

Altitudes. Surface up to and including FL 300

Times of use. As scheduled by NOTAM Controlling agency. FAA, Guam Center/Radar Approach Control Using agency. Commander, Naval Forces, Mar ianas Naval Station, GU

3 .2.6 W

- 13C Low Farallon De Medinilla Island

, Mariana Islands

. Boundaries

. Be ginning at latitude 15 ° 25’00” N., longitude 148 ° 04’00” E.;

to latitude 15 ° 25’00” N., longitude 146 ° 25’00” E.;

to latitude 14 ° 16’00” N., longitude 146 ° 25’00” E.; to latitude 14°45’00” N., longitude 148°00’00” E.; to the point of beginning.

Altitudes. Surface up to and including FL 300

Times of use. As scheduled by NOTAM Controlling agency. FAA, Guam Center/Radar Approach Control Using agency. Commander, Naval Forces, Marianas Naval Station, G U

3 .2.7 W

- 13A High Farallon De Medinilla Island

, Mariana Islands

. Boundaries. Beginning at latitude 17 ° 00’00” N., longitude 145 ° 05’00” E.;

to latitude 17 ° 00’00” N., longitude 146 ° 27’40” E.;

to latitude 15 ° 25’00” N., longitude 146 ° 27’40” E.; to latitude 15°25’00” N., longitude 146°25’00” E.; to latitude 15°40’22” N., longitude 146°12’03” E.;

to latitude 15°43’37” N., longitude 145°27’46” E.; to the point of beginning.

Altitudes. FL 300 up to and including FL 600

Times of use. As scheduled by NOTAM Controlling agency. FAA, Guam Center/Radar Approach Control Using agency. Commander, Naval Fo r ces, Marianas Naval Station, GU

3 .2.8 W

- 13B High Farallon De Medinilla Island

, Mariana Islands

. Boundaries. Beginning at latitude 17 ° 00’00” N., longitude 146 ° 27’40” E.;

to latitude 17 ° 00’00” N., longitude 147 ° 00’00” E.;

to latitude 16 ° 09’28” N., longitude 148 ° 09’46” E.; to latitude 15°25’00” N., longitude 148°04’00” E.;

to latitude 15 ° 25’00” N., longitude 147 ° 00’00” E.;

to latitude 15 ° 25’00” N., longitude 146 ° 27’00” E.;FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 8 of 58 to the point of beginning.

Altitudes. FL 300 up to and including FL 600

Times of use. As scheduled by NOTAM Controlling agency. FAA, Guam Center/Radar Approach Control Using agency. Commander, Naval Forc es, Marianas Naval Station, GU

3 .2.9 W

- 13C High Farallon De Medinilla Island

, Mariana Islands

. Boundaries. Beginning at latitude 15 ° 25’00” N, longitude 148 ° 04’00” E;

to latitude 15 ° 25’00” N, longitude 146 ° 25’00” E;

to latitude 14 ° 16’00” N, longitude 146 ° 25’00” E; to latitude 14°45’00” N, longitude 148°00’00” E; to the point of beginning.

Altitudes. FL 300 up to and including FL 600

Times of use. As scheduled by NOTAM Controlling agency. FAA, Guam Center/Radar Approach Control Using agency. Commander, Naval Forces, Marianas Naval Station, G U

4

. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the Proposed Action is to support the Navy’s requirements of maximizing public awareness of hazardous military training activities and to optimize safety and training efficiency. The Proposed Action is needed in order to support the Navy training activities that

involve the u se of advanced weapons systems.

5

. ALTERNATIVES

5 .1 The MIRC EA/OEA analyzed the potential environmental effects of three alternatives : Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and the No

- Action Alternative. For each Alternative except the No Action Alternative, the proposed airspace changes are the same.

5 .1.1 Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, existing airspace within the MIRC would be modified to optimize public safety and training efficiency. Under Alternative 1, the Navy proposes to (1) extend the Restricted Area (R

- 7201) at FDM from 3 NM to 12 NM and designate the new R A as R

- 7201A and (2) create new Warning Areas (W), designated as W

- 11, W

- 12, and W

- 13, which, upon approval and implementation, would replace existing Air Traffic Con trol Assigned Airspace 1, 2, and 3.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 9 of 58 5 .1.2 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) Under Alternative 2, airspace within the MIRC would be modified as described under

Alternative 1. In addition, the planned 10 NM DZ around FDM would be expanded to 12 NM (con gruent with proposed R

- 7201A). Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative because none of the other alternatives would be as effective in fulfilling the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action.

5 .1.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, training activities as defined by the 2010 MIRC EIS/OEIS

and Navy ROD would continue as currently implemented or authorized, with no change to the existing three NM Restricted Area (R

- 7201) or the planned 10 NM surface DZ a t FDM

.

5 .1.4 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed As determined in the Test/Training Space Needs Statement developed by the 36th Air Base Wing at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, there are no other feasible or reasonable airspace alternatives within the region.

5 .2 Preferred Alternatives from the 2010 MIRC and 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS

5 .2.1 2 010 MIRC EIS Proposed Alternative (Alternative 1) 3
The Proposed Alternative 1 would include increased training as a result of upgrades and modernization of existing capabilities, and include establishment of a DZ and restricted area around FDM (a 10 NM zone around FDM to be established in accordance with C .F.R. Title 33 §334.1; see Figure 2

- 3). Alternative 1 also includes training associated with ISR/Strike and other Andersen AFB initiatives. Training will also increase as a result of the development and deployment of new Portable Underwater Tracking Range (PUTR) capabilities. PUTR trains personnel in undersea warfare including conducting TRACKEX and TORPEX activities. Helicopter, ship, and submarine sonar systems will use this capability. Training activities will increase as a result of the development of a laser certified range area in W

- 517. This laser range capability will aid in the training of aircrews in the delivery of air

- to

- surface missiles against surface vessel targets. Primarily conducted in W

- 517, the weapon systems commonly used in

this trainin g activity are the laser guided HELLFIRE missile or an inert captive air training missile. The captive air training missile is a missile shape that contains electronics only, and it remains attached to the aircraft weapon mounting points. The MISSILEX invo lves in

- flight laser designation and guidance, and arming and releasing of the air to surface weapon by aircraft, typically against a small stationary, towed, or maneuvering target; however a captive air training missile exercise (CATMEX) may be conducted against any laser reflective target mounted on or towed by a target support vessel.

5 .2.2 M ITT EIS Preferred Alt ernative 4
The Navy proposes to conduct military readiness training and testing activities throughout the MITT Study Area . In order to achieve and maintain Fleet readiness, the Navy proposes to:

3 The description of the 2010 MIRC EIS/OEIS only includes the elements relevant to the proposed SUA from the

2013 MIRC EA.

4 The description of the 201 5 MI TT EIS/OEIS only includes the elements relevant to the proposed SUA from the

2013 MIRC EA.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 10 of 58 • Adjust baseline training and testing activities from current levels to the level needed to support military training and testing requirements beginning in 2015. As part of the adjustment, the Navy propose s to account for other activities and sound sources not addressed in the previous analyses.

• Analyze the potential environmental impacts of training and testing activities in

additional at

- sea areas (areas not covered in previous documents) where training a nd testing historically occurs, including Navy ports and the transit corridor serving these

areas.

• Update the environmental impact analyses in the previous documents to account for force structure changes, including those resulting from the development, te sting, and use of weapons, platforms, and systems that will be operational by 2020.

6

. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT S OF THE PROPOSED AC TION

T he F A A h a s c ompl e t e d a n ind e p e nd e nt r e vi e w a nd e v a lu a tion of the Navy’ s EA/OEA in

acc o r d a n c e w ith the C E Q r e g ul a tions ( s e e 40 C. F .R. § 1506.3 (c ) ) , F A A Or d e r 1050.1 F

, a nd F A A

O r d e r J O 7400.2 K

, “ P ro ce dur e s for H andli n g A irspa c e M att e rs. ”

T he f ollo w ing summ a r i z e s a n a l y s e s in the EA/OEA a nd p re s e nts the re sults of the F A A ’ s ind e p e nd e nt re v i e w a nd e v a lu a tion r e g ar di n g the pot e nti a l e nvi r onm e nt a l imp ac ts of the FAA’s

P r opos e d Ac tion in eac h of the imp ac t ca t e g o r i e s p re s cr ib e d b y F A A Or d e r 1050.1 F

.

The Final EA/OEA examined potential impacts on public health and safety, transportation resources, regional economy, and recreation associated with each alternative. The Final EA/OEA did not analyze any resource areas that were adequately covered in the MI RC EIS/OEIS or that

were not impacted by the Proposed Action, so information relevant to the impact category provided below is from both the 2013 MIRC EA/OEA and the 2010 MIRC EIS /OEIS.

Additional information is also included from the 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS si nce it assumed the Proposed SUA i s established , and the MITT increases training operations and includes additional aircraft types.

6 .1 Environmental Impact Categories

6 .1.1 Air Quality

6 .1.1.1 MIRC EA/OEA Proposed change s to the SUA and expansion of the DZ would not result in a change in total annual emissions because training activities would not differ in scope, nature, or location from those approved in the MIRC EIS/OEIS.

6 .1.1.2 MIRC 2010 EIS/OEIS Analysis Evaluating aircraft emissions involves evaluating the type of training activities for each type of aircraft, the number of hours of operation for each aircraft type, the type of engine in each aircraft, and the mode of operation for each type of aircraft engine during trainin g. Aircraft emit the following NAAQS criteria pollutants and precursors: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), NOx, CO, SO 2 and PM 10 . Emissions occurring above 3,000 feet AGL need not be addressed inFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 11 of 58 accordance with USEPA guidance (USEPA 1992). Aircraft fligh ts, for the most part originate from an onshore air station ( e.g ., Andersen AFB), but some are from aircraft carriers offshore. It was assumed that all fixed wing aircraft would be traveling from Andersen AFB or an aircraft carrier to the ATCAAs, W

- 517 and R

- 7201 at elevations above 3,000 feet, and that transit to and from the airspaces would not affect local air quality.

The MIRC EIS/OEIS determined that no significant impact on air quality would occur because all training events analyzed are within area s designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being in attainment for all criteria pollutants

, or in nonattainment areas for SO 2 where

the associated total annual emissions are less than the de minimis thresholds for General Conformity determ ination.

6 .1.1.3 MITT 2015 EIS/OEIS Analysis

Air craft emissions were estimated assuming training and testing aircraft flights originate d offshore from aircraft carriers or other Navy vessels outfitted with flight decks and from North

Field at Andersen Air Force Base. With the exception of helicopters, all aircraft are assumed to

travel to and from train ing ranges at or above 3,000 feet above mean sea level and, therefore, their transits to and from the ranges do not affect surface air quality. Air comba t maneuvers and

air

- to

- air missile exercises are primarily conducted at altitudes well in excess of 3,000 f ee t above ground level and, therefore, are not included in the estimated emissions of criteria pollutants. Activities or portions of those training o r testing activities occurring below 3,000 f ee t are included in emissions estimates. Examples of activities typically occurring below 3,000 f ee t include those involving helicopter platforms such as mine warfare, anti

- surface warfare, and anti

submarine war fare training and testing activities.

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 ordnance during use, the numbers and types of munitions used during training or testing activities are first totaled. Then, generally accepted emissions factors (AP

- 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Chapter 15: Ordnance Detonation [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1995]) for c riteria pollutants are applied to the total amounts. Finally, the total amounts of air pollutants emitted by each munition type are summed to produce total amounts of each criteria pollutant under each alternative.

Under the Proposed Action , the annual nu mbers of Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area would increase. Emissions of all criteria pollutants would increase. Criteria pollutants emitted in the Study Area within territorial waters could be transported ashore but

would not affect th e attainment status of the relevant air quality control regions. The amounts of air pollutants emitted in the Study Area and subsequently transported ashore would be minor because (1) the pollutants are emitted over large areas (i.e., the Study Area is an area source), (2) the distances the air pollutants would be transported are often large, and (3) the pollutants would be substantially dispersed during transport.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 12 of 58 Estimated Annual Criteria pollutant Emissions in the Study Area

Source Emissions by Air Pollutant (TPY)

CO NO

x VOC SO

x PM 10 PM 2.5 Total Training Activities 1,052 1,436 210 677 459 412 4,246 Testing Activities 265 186 25 36 20 17 549 Total MITT Study

Area 1,317 1,622 235 713 479 429 4,759

Emissions associated with the entire Study Area training and testing under the Proposed Action primarily occur offshore. Fixed

- wing aircraft emissions typically occur above the 3,000 feet mixing layer. Even though these stressors can co

- occur in time and s pace, atmospheric dispersion would occur so that the impacts would be short term. Changes in criteria and hazardous air pollutant emissions are not expected to be detectable, so the air quality is expected to fully recover before a subsequent activity. For these reasons, impacts on air quality from combining these resource stressors are expected to be similar to the impacts on air quality for any of these stressors taken individually with no additive, synergistic, or antagonistic interactions.

Emissions of most criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants are expected to increase under

Alternative 1.

6 .1.1.4 Conclusion The FAA significant impact threshold for air quality would be met if the proposed Action would cause pollutant concentrations to exceed one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as established by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act, for any of the time periods analyzed, or to increase the frequency or severity of any such existing violations

. FAA verified that the area is still in attainment in October 2016. In addition, the majority of trai ning activities (sorties) occur more than 12 NM from the shore and above 3,000 ft. Because of the distances from land, these activities would have little to no impact on local air quality. Per the analysis in this Air Quality section above, the FAA has determined that the project will have less than significant impacts on air quality.

6 .2 Biological Resources (including fish, wildlife, and plants)

6 .2.1 MIRC EA/OEA The Proposed Action would not change the manner of use or quality of land, water, or other coastal resources or limit the range of their uses as those analyzed in the MIRC EIS/OEIS. Proposed changes to the SUA and expansion of the sea space, or DZ, would not result in a change in the level of training activities and they would not differ in scope, nature, or location from those approved in the MIRC EIS/OEIS.

6 .2.2 MIRC 2010 EIS/OEIS Analysis The MIRC EIS/OEIS determined that no significant imp act on these species would occur because aircraft overflights would occur over marine environments at elevations in excess of 3,000 feet above sea level and beyond three NM. Based on the analysis presented in the MIRC EIS/OEIS for aircraft overflights, mar ine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds and shorebirds, and terrestrial species would likely exhibit no response, or may change their behavior to avoid theFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 13 of 58 disturbance. Any behavioral avoidance reaction would be short

- term and would not permanently displace ani mals or result in physical harm. Overflights would not be expected to result in chronic stress to these species, because it is extremely unlikely that individuals of each of these species would be repeatedly exposed to low

- altitude overflights. Mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts would continue to be conducted in accordance with established policies and restrictions to conserve and protect resources.

6 .2.3 MITT 2015 EIS/OEIS Analysis

T he proposed SUA includes R

- 7201A . Some of the Navy’s training and testing activities with live ordnance can only happen within the RA, therefore , impacts to wildlife within the ocean are

considered below

.

6 .2.3.1 W ildlife

Whales

There are 15 whale species potentially found in the Study Area . Five of the 15 are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as endangered. The endangered species are: humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), sei whale (Balenoptera ) , and the sperm whale (Phys eter microcephalus) . The remaining 10 whales are Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera brydei/edeni), Minke whale (Balaenoptera actorostrata), Omura’s whale (Balaenoptera omurai), pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), dwarf sperm whale ( Kogia sima ), killer whale ( Orc inus orca ), false killer whale ( Pseudorca

crassidens ), pygmy killer whale ( Feresa attenuata ), short

- finned pilot whale ( Globicephala macrorhynchus ), and the melon

- headed whale ( Peponocephala electra ).

Dolphins There are two dolphins potentially found in t he Study Area. Neither are listed under ESA.

Sea Turtles There are five sea turtle species potentially found in the Study Area are listed under ESA as endangered or threatened. The five species are: the green sea turtle (Chelonian mydas

- threatened), the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate

- endangered), the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta

- endangered), the olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea

- threatened), and the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea

- endangered).

Birds Seabirds are birds whose normal habitat and food source is the sea, whether they utilize coastal waters (the nearshore), offshore waters, or pelagic waters (the open sea). Three seabirds that occur in the Study Area are listed under the ESA as threat ened or endangered species. The short

tailed albatross ( Phoebastria albatrus ) and Hawaiian petrel ( Pterodroma sandwichensis ) are listed as endangered, and the Newell’s shearwater ( Puffinus auricularis newelii ) is listed as threatened. The Hawaiian petrel a nd Newell’s shearwater rarely occur within the Study Area.

6 .2.3.1.1 Impacts from Aircraft Noise The Proposed Action includes fixed

- and rotary

- wing aircraft overflights used for a variety of training and testing activities throughout the Study Area . More than 19,600 training activities involving some level of aircraft activity are proposed under the Proposed Action , as opposed toFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 14 of 58 5,300 in the No Action Alternative. Most fixed

- wing military aircraft flights would occur above 3,000 feet, and often at much higher altitudes (e.g., 20,000 feet) in the Study Area. Rotary wing aircraft typically fly at lower altitudes (less than 1,000 feet) and may hover at less than 100 feet during certain training and testing activities.

In most cases, exposure of a nimal s to fixed

- wing or rotary

- wing aircraft presence and noise would last for only seconds as the aircraft quickly passes overhead. Animals would have to be at or near the surface at the time of an overflight to be exposed to appreciable sound levels.

Takeoffs and landings occur at established airfields as well as on vessels at sea at unspecified locations across the Study Area. Takeoff and landings from Navy vessels could startle animals ; however, these events only produce in

- water noise at any given location for a brief period of time as the aircraft climbs to cruising altitude.

Helicopters Helicopters may also produce strong downdrafts, a vertical flow of air that becomes a surface wind, which can also affect an animal's behavior at or near the surface. Underwater sounds from aircraft are strongest just below the surface and directly under the aircraft.

6 .2.3.1.1.1 Training Activities

Marine Mammals Whales and dolphins (marine mammals) may respond to both the physical presence and to the noise generated by aircraft, making it difficult to attribute causation to one or the other stimulus. In addition to noise produced, all low

- flying aircraft make shadows, which can cause animals at

the s urface to react.

M arine mammals show little to no reaction from aircraft overflights above 2,000 feet. Some sonic booms from aircraft could startle marine mammals, but these events are transient and happen infrequently at any given location within the St udy Area. Repeated exposure to most individuals over short periods (days) is extremely unlikely. No long

- term consequences for individuals or populations would be expected.

Low flight altitudes of helicopters during some anti

- submarine warfare and mine w arfare activities, often under 100 feet, may elicit a somewhat stronger behavioral response due to the proximity to marine mammals; the slower airspeed and therefore longer exposure duration; and the downdraft created by the helicopter's rotor. Marine mamm als would likely avoid the area under the helicopter. It is unlikely that an individual would be exposed repeatedly for long periods of time as these aircraft typically transit open ocean areas within the Study Area. M arine

mammals located at or near the s urface when an aircraft flies overhead at low altitudes may startle, divert their attention to the aircraft, or avoid the immediate area by swimming away or diving.

T he number of overflights, typical altitudes, and distribution throughout the year and ove r the Study Area would result in a low probability of exposing marine mammals to aircraft noise. No long

- term consequences for individuals or populations would be expected.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 15 of 58 Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act ( MMPA ) , aircraft overflight noise du ring training activities under the Proposed Action is not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment of marine mammals. Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft overflight noise during training

activities as described under the No Action Alternative:

• May aff ect, but is not likely to adversely affect the blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, sei whale, and sperm whale

Sea Turtles Sea turtles may respond to both the physical presence and to the noise generated by aircraft, making causation by one or the other stimulus difficult to determine. In addition to noise, all

low

- flying aircraft create shadows, to which animals at the surface may react. Helicopters may also produce strong downdrafts, a vertical flow of air that becomes a surface wind, which can

also af fect an animal's behavior at or near the surface.

In most cases, exposure of a sea turtle to fixed

- wing or rotary

- wing aircraft would last for only seconds as the aircraft quickly passes overhead. Sea turtles would have to be at or near the

surface at the time of an overflight to be exposed to appreciable noise levels. Take

- offs and landings occur as on vessels at sea across the Study Area. Take

- offs and landings from Navy vessels could startle sea turtles; however, these activities only produce in

- water n oise at any given location for a brief period as the aircraft climbs to cruising altitude. Some sonic booms from aircraft could startle sea turtles, but these activities are transient and happen infrequently at any given location within the Study Area. Rep eated exposure to most individuals over short periods (days) is unlikely, except for animals that reside in nearshore areas around Navy ports, or on Navy fixed

- ranges, or during major training exercises.

Low flight altitudes of helicopters during some act ivities, which often occur under 100 feet altitude, may elicit a somewhat stronger behavioral response due to the proximity to the water; the slower airspeed and therefore longer exposure duration; and the downdraft created by the helicopter’s rotor. Sea t urtles would likely avoid the area under the helicopter. An individual likely would not be exposed repeatedly for long periods because these activities typically transit open ocean areas within the Study Area.

Significant behavioral reactions by sea turtl es due to passing aircraft noise are not expected, even though the noise may cause short

- term impacts, no long

- term consequences for individuals or populations would be expected.

Pursuant to the ESA, noise from vessels and aircraft during training activit ies under the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive ridley, and leatherback sea turtles.

Birds

Under the Proposed Action , seabirds and migratory birds may be exposed to more sonic booms infrequently while flying or foraging in the Study Area

. Occasional startle or alert reactions to aircraft are not likely to disrupt major behavior patterns (such as migrating, breeding, feeding, and sheltering) or to result in serious injury to any seabir ds. Helicopter overflights would be more likely to elicit responses than fixed

- wing aircraft, but the general health of individual birdsFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 16 of 58 would not be compromised. For these reasons, the impact of noise produced by Navy aircraft and

vessels on seabirds unde r the Proposed Action would be minor and short

- term. Short

- term impacts on individual birds are not expected to impact seabird populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft and vessel noise generated during training activities under the Proposed Action would have no effect on the Hawaiian petrel, Newell’s shearwater, or short

tailed albatross. Under the MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities (50 C.F.R. Part 21), aircraft and vessel noise generated during training activities under the

Pro posed Aciton would not result in a significant adverse effect on populations of the great frigatebird, masked booby, or other marine bird populations.

6 .2.3.1.1.2 Testing Activities

Under Proposed Action , up to 390 aircraft

- related testing activities would occur throughout the Study Area. The locations and flight profiles (altitude, airspeed, and duration) of testing activities involving aircraft would be similar to training activities involving aircraft. Even with an increase in the number of aircraft overflights, the majority of flight time would occur at altitudes greater than 3,000 feet above the water’s surface.

Testing activities proposed under the Proposed Action would increase Navy aircraft overf lights, increasing overall amounts of aircraft noise. Overall noise levels may increase in these

environments.

Whales Marine mammals are unlikely to be disturbed by high altitude overflights.

Pursuant to the MMPA, aircraft overflight noise during testing activities under Proposed Action is not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment of marine mammals. Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft overflight noise during testing activities as descri bed under the Proposed Action :

• May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, sei whale, and sperm whale

Sea Turtles Although more sea turtle exposures to noise from aircraft could occur, sea turtles exposed to a passing Navy aircraft may not respond at all, or they may exhibit a short

- term behavioral response such as avoidance or changing dive behavior. Short

- term react ions to aircraft are not likely to disrupt major behavioral patterns or to result in serious injury to any sea turtles. Significant behavioral reactions by sea turtles due to passing vessel or aircraft noise are not expected. E ven though the noise may caus e short

- term impacts, no long

- term consequences for individuals or populations would be expected.

Pursuant to the ESA, noise from vessels and aircraft during testing activities under the Proposed

Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, g reen, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive ridley,

and leatherback sea turtles.

Birds The testing activities are specific to Navy vessels, and are not dependent on the proposed SUA.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 17 of 58 6 .2.3.1.2 Impacts from Weapons Firing, Launch, and Impact Noise

Anti

- surface warfare activities and anti

- air warfare (surface

- to

- air) activities would involve the

use of non

- explosive and explosive ordnance such as small

- , medium

- , and large

- caliber projectiles; missiles; rockets; and bombs. Sound due to missile and ta rget launches is typically at a maximum at initiation of the booster rocket and rapidly fades as the missile or target travels downrange. These sounds would be transient and of short duration, lasting no more than a few seconds at any given location. Many missiles and targets are launched from aircraft, which would produce minimal noise in the water due to the altitude of the aircraft at launch. Missiles and targets launched by ships or near the water's surface may expose animals to levels of sound

that cou ld produce brief startle reactions, avoidance, or diving. Most activities would consist of single launches. Non

- explosive bombs, missiles, and targets could impact the water with great force and produce a short duration impulse noise underwater that would depend on the size, weight, and speed of the object at impact. Due to the short

- term, transient nature of launch noise, animals are unlikely to be exposed multiple times within a short period. Behavioral reactions would likely be short

- term (minutes).

Tra ining Activities

Marine Mammals Marine mammals may be exposed to weapons firing and launch noise and sound from the impact

of non

- explosive ordnance on the water's surface. Reactions by marine mammals to these specific stressors have not been recorded, however marine mammals would be expected to react

to weapons firing, launch, and non

- explosive impact noise as they would other transient sounds.

Pursuant to the MMPA, weapons firing, launch, and non

- explosive impact noise during training

activities under Proposed Action is not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment of

marine mammals. Pursuant to the ESA, weapons firing, launch, and non

- explosive impact noise during training activities as described under the Proposed Action :

• May affect, b ut is not likely to adversely affect the blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, sei whale, and sperm whale

Sea Turtles

Because model

- predicted impacts are conservative and most impacts would be short

- term, potential impacts are not expected to result in s ubstantial changes to behavior, growth, survival, annual reproductive success, lifetime reproductive success (fitness), or species recruitment. Although a few individuals may experience long

- term impacts and potential mortality, population

- level impacts ar e not expected.

Pursuant to the ESA, noise from weapons firing, launch, and non

- explosive impact during training activities under the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive ridley, and leatherback sea turtles.

Birds Impacts from w eapons firing, launch and impact noise are covered under the Impacts f rom Aircraft Noise section above.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 18 of 58 Testing Activities The Proposed Action adjust s to the location, type, and tempo of training and testing activities, which includes the addition of platforms and systems. Testing activities that produce in

- water noise from weapons firing, launch, and non

- explosive ordnance impact with the water's surf ace would occur under the Proposed Action

. The majority of testing activities that would involve weapons firing and ordnance impacts with the water’s surface are Air

- to

- Surface Missile Test,

Anti

- Submarine Warfare Tracking Test

– Maritime Patrol Aircraft ( Sonobuoy), Anti

- Surface Warfare Mission Package Testing, and Kinetic Energy Weapon Testing.

Marine Mammals

The testing activities would use both non

- explosive and explosive medium

- caliber rounds, large

caliber projectiles, and missiles. T he locations, typ es, and severity of impacts would not be discernible from those described above in Training Activities above

.

Pursuant to the MMPA, weapons firing, launch, and non

- explosive impact noise during testing

activities under the Proposed Action is not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment of marine mammals. Pursuant to the ESA, weapons firing, launch, and non

- explosive impact noise during testing activities as described under the Proposed Action :

• May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, sei whale, and sperm whale

Sea Turtles Any behavioral reactions would likely be short

- term and consist of brief startle reactions, avoidance, or diving. Any signi ficant behavioral reactions could lead to a sea turtle expending energy and missing opportunities to secure resources. However, because most activities would consist of a limited number of firings or launches and would not occur over long durations, there would be an opportunity to recover from an incurred energy cost. Although some individuals may be impacted by activities that include weapons firing, launch, and non

- explosive impact, population

- level impacts are not expected.

Pursuant to the ESA, noise f rom weapons firing, launch, and non

- explosive impact during testing activities under Alternative 1 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive ridley, and leatherback sea turtles.

Birds Impacts from w eapons firing, launch and impact noise are covered under the Impacts f rom Aircraft Noise section above.

6 .2.3.1.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials A wide variety of expended materials are used during training and testing activities. Military expended mat erials used in the Study Area include all sizes of non

- explosive practice munitions, fragments from explosive munitions, and expended materials other than ordnance, such as sonobuoys. The number of small

- caliber projectiles that would be expended annually during gunnery exercises is much higher than the number of large

- caliber projectiles. However, the total number of rounds expended is not a good indicator of strike probability during gunnery exercises because multiple rounds are fired at individual target s.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 19 of 58 There is a strike potential to animals from the following categories of military expended materials: (1) non

- explosive practice munitions; (2) fragments from high

- explosive munitions; and (3) expended materials other than ordnance, such as sonobuoys, and expendable targets

. While disturbance or strike from an item falling through the water column is possible, it is not very likely because the objects generally sink slowly through the water and can be avoided by

most marine animals

.

While no strike fr om military expended materials has ever been reported or recorded, the possibility of a strike still exists. Animals that occur in the Study Area may be exposed to the risk of military expended material strike. The critical habitat would not be impacted by military expended materials as a physical disturbance and strike stressor.

Training and Testing Activities

Marine Mammals

Under the Proposed Action , the strike potential to marine mammals range s from zero (i.e., or a zero percent chance of a strike by a military expended mate rial over the course of a year) to a high of approximately eight one

- hundredths of one percent (0.08 percent) of a chance of being struck by a military expended material.

The increase in expended materials results in a correspondin g increase of the risk of a strike, but it does not change the underlying conclusion that the use of military expended materials is not expected to result in the physical disturbance or a strike of marine mammals. Furthermore, Navy mitigation measures addr essing the use of sonobuoys and other military expended materials require that the area is clear of marine mammals before deploying sonobuoys or other types of military expended materials.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of military expended materials duri ng training or testing

activities under the Proposed Action are not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment of marine mammals. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials during training or testing activities as described under the Proposed Action :

• May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, sei whale, and sperm whale

Sea Turtles While disturbance or strike from an item as it falls through the water column is possible, it is not very likely because the objects generally sink through the water slowly and can be avoided by

most sea turtles.

Training Activities With the exception of those used at FDM, the majority of military expended materials (bombs, medium and large

- caliber projectiles, and missiles) are all used in areas of the Study Area greater than 3 NM from shorelines, and the larger of these (bombs, missiles, large

- caliber p rojectiles) are restricted to use in areas greater than 3 NM from shore. Small caliber projectiles would be used throughout the Study Area. The probabilities of a strike in the open ocean portion of the StudyFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 20 of 58 Area, where the majority of materials are expended, is less than 0.00001 percent for all species

of sea tur tles.

Any of the sea turtle species found in the Study Area can occur at or near the surface in open ocean and coastal areas, whether feeding or periodically surfacing to breathe. These species are distributed widely in all offshore portions of the Study Area. Under the Proposed Action, exposures to military

- expended materials used in training activities may cause short

- term disturbance to an individual turtle, or, if struck, it could lead to injury or death. Potential impacts of exposure to military

- expen ded materials may result in changes to an individual’s behavior, growth, survival, annual reproductive success, lifetime reproductive success (fitness), or species recruitment. Potential impacts of exposure to military

- expended materials are not expected t o result in population

- level impacts.

T here is a very low potential for aberrant ordnance to impact offshore waters near FDM on sea turtles for areas where ordnance is targeted (expected to fall), and probabilities of strike were

calculated to be near zer o percent. Based on this calculation, it is even more unlikely for a direct

strike on a sea turtle or marine mammal from aberrant ordnance at FDM.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use military expended materials during training activities as described

in the Prop osed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive ridley, or leatherback sea turtles.

Testing Activities

A ctivities that could generate military expended materials would increase, and could take place

throu ghout the Study Area. Similar to those for training activities, consequences of strikes or disturbances could include injury or mortality, particularly within the footprint of the object. The probabilities of a strike in the open ocean portion of the Study Area, where the majority of materials are expended, is less than 0.00001 percent for all species of sea turtles.

Under the Proposed Action , exposures to military expended materials used in testing activities may cause short

- term disturbance to an individ ual turtle, or if struck, it could lead to injury or death. Potential impacts of exposure to military expended materials may result in changes to an individual’s behavior, growth, survival, annual reproductive success, lifetime reproductive success (fitnes s), or species recruitment. The fitness of individual organisms could be impacted directly or indirectly, but not to the extent that the viability of populations or species would be impacted, primarily because the possibility of strike is so low.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use military expended materials during testing activities as described in the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive ridley, or leatherback sea turtles.

Birds Exposure of birds to military expended materials during Navy training and testing activities could result in physical injury or behavioral disturbances to birds in air, at the surface, or underwater during foraging dives. Although a quantitative analysis is not possible due to the absence of bird density information in the Study Area, an assessment of the likelihood ofFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 21 of 58 exposure to military expended materials was conducted based on general bird distributions in the Study Are a.

The number of large

- caliber projectiles and other large munitions (e.g., bombs, rockets, missiles) that would be expended in the Study Area annually at sea, coupled with the often patchy pelagic distribution of seabirds (Fauchald et al. 2002, Haney 198 6), suggest that the likelihood of this type of strike for a seabird would be extremely low at sea.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials during testing activities under the Proposed Action would have no effect on the Hawaiian petrel , Newell’s shearwater, or short

tailed albatross. Under the MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities (50 C.F.R. Part 21), the use of military expended materials during testing activities under the Proposed Action would not result in a s ignificant adverse effect on populations of the great frigatebird, masked booby, or other marine bird populations.

6 .2.3.1.4 Impacts from Explosive and Non

- explosive Practice Munitions

U nder the Proposed Action , approximately 97,000 explosive munitions and non

- explosive practice munitions considered an ingestion risk would be used during training activities annually in the Study Area. Of that total, 86,000 are non

- explosive, small

- caliber projectiles, and the remaining are explosive munitions, including bombs, medium

- and large

- caliber projectiles, missiles, and rockets, that could introduce fragments potentially small enough to be ingested by a bottom feeding marine mammal. The number of explosive munitions and non

- explosive practice munitions proposed u nder the Proposed Action represents an increase of 57 percent over the

number proposed under the No Action Alternative. All explosive bombs, missiles, rockets, and large

- caliber projectiles would be used over deep, offshore waters greater than 12 NM (and i n some cases greater than 50 NM ) from shore. Approximately 45 percent of non

- explosive, small

caliber projectiles would be expended greater than 12 NM from shore, and 98 percent of explosive medium

- caliber projectiles would be expended greater than 12 NM from shore.

Training Activities

Marine Mammals The number of munitions and explosive munitions fragments that an individual animal could

encounter would generally be low, based on the patchy distribution of both the munitions and an animal’s feeding habi tat. In addition, an animal would not ingest every munitions or munitions fragment it encountered, and if a munition or munitions fragment were ingested, an animal may attempt to reject it when it realizes the item is not food. Wells et al. (2008) showed t hat even ingestion of certain items (e.g., hooks), if they do not become embedded in tissue, may not result in injury or mortality to the individual. Therefore, potential impacts of munitions ingestion would be limited to the unlikely event where a marine mammal might ingest an item that subsequently becomes embedded in tissue or is too large to be passed through the digestive

system.

Pursuant to the MMPA, ingestion of munitions used during training activities under the Proposed Action is not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment of marine mammals. Pursuant to the ESA, ingestion of munitions used during training activities as described under

the Proposed Action :FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 22 of 58 • May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the blue whale, fin whale, hump back whale, sei whale, and sperm whale

Sea Turtles Ingestion of expended materials by sea turtles could occur in all open ocean areas, and can occur at the surface, in the water column, or at the seafloor depending on the size and buoyancy of the expended object and the feeding behavior of the turtle. Floating material could be eaten by turtles such as leatherbacks that feed at or near the water surface, while materials that sink to the seafloor pose a risk to bottom

- feeding turtles such as loggerheads. O n ly small or medium caliber projectiles would be small enough for a sea turtle to ingest.

T he expected impact on any exposed sea turtle due to ingestion of munitions used in training activities may cause short

- term or long

- term disturbance to an individual turtle. Potential impacts of exposure to munitions are not expected to result in population

- level impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of munitions of ingestible size during training activities under the Proposed Action would have no e ffect on leatherback sea turtles. The use of munitions of ingestible size may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, loggerhead, and olive ridley sea turtles.

Birds The majority impacts to birds from occur on land at their nesting sites, which are outside the proposed SUA.

Expending of military materials may coincide with transiting short

- tailed albatrosses through training areas; however, the rarity of this species in general and the lack of frequent sightings, chances for its po tential interactions with training exercises would be extremely low. The spatial and temporal variability of both the occurrence of a short

- tailed albatross and the training activities conducted within offshore locations near foraging areas presents an imp robable chance that a direct or indirect effect would occur to this species. T he known ranges of Hawaiian petrels and Newell’s shearwaters may overlap with the transit corridor and do not overlap with land training areas or surrounding coastal areas.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials during training activities under the No Action Alternative would have no effect on the Hawaiian petrel, Newell’s shearwater, or

short

- tailed albatross. Under the MBTA regulations applicable to mil itary readiness activities (50 C.F.R. Part 21), the use of military expended materials during training activities under the the Proposed A ction would not result in a significant adverse effect on populations of the great frigatebird, masked booby, or other marine bird populations.

Testing Activities

Marine Mammals

U nder the Proposed Action , approximately 11,000 explosive munitions and non

- explosive practice munitions considered an ingestion risk would be used during testing activities annually in the Study Area. Of that total, approximately 4,000 are non

- explosive, small

- caliber or

medium

- caliber projectiles, and the remaining 7,000 are explosive munitions. Eighty

- sevenFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 23 of 58 percent of the explosive munitions are medium

- and large

- caliber projectiles, and the re maining 13 percent are missiles, rockets, and torpedoes.

Explosive munitions could introduce fragments potentially small enough to be ingested by a

bottom feeding marine mammal. The number of munitions and explosive munitions fragments

that an individual animal could encounter would generally be low, based on the patchy distribution of both the munitions and an animal’s feeding habitat. In addition, an animal would not ingest every munitions or munitions fragment it encountered, and if a munition or munit ions fragment were ingested, an animal may attempt to reject it when it realizes the item is not food. Therefore, potential impacts of munitions ingestion would be limited to the unlikely event where

a marine mammal might ingest an item that subsequently b ecomes embedded in tissue or is too large to be passed through the digestive system.

Pursuant to the MMPA, ingestion of munitions used during testing activities under the Proposed

Action is not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment of marin e mammals. Pursuant to the ESA, ingestion of munitions used during testing activities as described under the Proposed

Action :

• May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, sei whale, and sperm whale

Sea Turtles

Sub

- lethal effects due to ingestion of munitions used in testing activities may cause short

- term or long

- term disturbance to an individual. Potential impacts of exposure to munitions may result in changes to an individual’s behavior, growth, surviv al, annual reproductive success, lifetime reproductive success (fitness), or species recruitment. However, munitions used in testing activities are generally not expected to cause disturbance to sea turtles because: (1) sea turtles are not expected to enco unter most small

- and medium

- caliber projectiles or high

- explosive fragments on the seafloor because of the depth at which these would be expended; and (2) in some cases a turtle would likely pass the projectile through their digestive tract and expel the item without impacting the individual. Potential impacts of exposure to munitions are not expected to result in population

- level impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of munitions of ingestible size during testing activities under

Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtles. The use of munitions of ingestible size may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect green, hawksbill, loggerhead, and olive ridley

sea turtles.

Birds Impacts to birds from Explosive and Non

- explosive Practice M unitions is covered under the Military Expended Materials section 7.2.3.1.3 of this FONSI

- ROD.

6 .2.3.1.5 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other than Munitions Training activities would release military expended materials other than munitions in the Study

Area increase by approximately 300 percent . Target

- related material, chaff, flares, and their subcomponents have the potential to be ingested by a nimals . Although most of these materials would quickly drop through the water column and settle on t he seafloor, some Styrofoam, plasticFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 24 of 58 endcaps, and other small items may float for some time before sinking. Under the Proposed

Action , approximately 63,000 military expended materials other than munitions would be used during training activities. Approxima tely 80 percent of these items are chaff and flares, all of which would be expended in deep waters beyond 12 NM from shore.

Chaff

Some animals within the Study Area could be exposed to chaff through direct body contact and ingestion. Chemical alteration of water and sediment from decomposing chaff fibers is not expected to result in exposure. Based on the dispersion characteristics of chaff, it is likely that

animals would occasionally come in direct contact with chaff fibers while at the water’s surface and while submerged, but such contact would be inconsequential. Animals could occasionally ingest low concentrations of chaff incidentally from the surface, water column, or seafloor. While no studies were conducted to evaluate the effects of chaff ingestion on animals , the effects are expected to be negligible, based on the low concentrations that could reasonably be ingested,

the small size of c haff fibers, and available data on the toxicity of chaff and aluminum.

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 animals . Chaff end c aps and pistons sink in saltwater (Spargo 2007), which reduces the likelihood of ingestion by animals at
the surface or in the water column.

Flares Flares are designed to burn completely. The only material that would enter the water would be a small, rou nd, plastic end cap and piston (approximately 1.4 inch in diameter). Animals within the vicinity of flares could be exposed to light generated by the flares. Pistons and end caps from flares would have the same impact on animals as discussed under chaff ca rtridges. It is unlikely

that animals would be exposed to any chemicals that produce either flames or smoke since these components are consumed in their entirety during the burning process. Animals are unlikely to approach or get close enough to the flame to be exposed to any chemical components.

Training Activities

Marine Mammals The impacts of ingesting these forms of expended materials on marine mammals would be minor because of the limited geographic area where materials and other than ordnance are expended during a given event ; t he limited period of time these military expended materials w ould remain in the water column; t he unlikely chance that a marine mammal might encounter and swallow these items on the sea floor, particularly given that many of these items would be expe nded over deep, offshore waters; and t he ability of many marine mammals to reject and not swallow non

food items incidentally ingested.

The impacts of ingesting military expended materials other than munitions would be limited to cases where an individual marine mammal might eat an indigestible item too large to be passed through the gut. The marine mammals would not be preferentially attracted to these military expended materials. For the most part, these military expended materi als would most likely only be incidentally ingested by individuals feeding on the bottom in the precise location where these items were deposited. Non

- munition military expended materials that would remain floating onFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 25 of 58 the surface are too small to pose a ri sk of intestinal blockage to any marine mammal that happened to encounter it.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during training activities under the Proposed Action is not expected to result in Level A or Le vel B harassment of marine mammals. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during training activities as described under the Proposed Action :

• May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the blue whale, fin wh ale, humpback whale, sei whale, and sperm whale

Sea Turtles Because leatherbacks are more likely to feed at or near the surface, they are more likely to encounter materials at the surface than are other species of turtles that primarily feed along the

sea floor. Furthermore, leatherbacks typically feed in the open ocean, while other species are more likely to feed in nearshore areas. Though they are bottom

- feeding species that generally feed nearshore, green, hawksbill, olive ridley and loggerhead sea turtl es may occur in the open ocean during migrations. T he increase in training activities presented in the Proposed Action increases the risk of sea turtles being exposed to chaff and flares; however, the expected impact on any exposed sea turtle remains the same. S ub

- lethal effects due to ingestion of military expended materials other than munitions used in training activiti es may cause short

- term or long

term disturbance to an individual turtle.

Pursuant to the ESA, the ingestion of military expended materials other than munitions during training activities under Alternative 1 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affe ct, green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive ridley, or leatherback sea turtles.

Birds Ingestion of chaff fibers is not expected to cause substantial damage to a bird’s digestive tract based on the fibers’ small size and flexible nature, as well as the small q uantity that could reasonably be ingested. In addition, concentrations of chaff fibers that could reasonably be ingested are not expected to be toxic to birds. It is highly unlikely that a bird would ingest a toxic dose of chaff based on the anticipated en vironmental concentration of chaff (i.e., 1.8 fibers per square foot for an unrealistic, worst

- case scenario of 360 chaff cartridges simultaneously released at a single drop point).

If foraging in an area where military expended materials are present on t he sea surface, the short

tailed albatross, Hawaiian petrel, and Newell’s shearwater could be impacted by ingestion of military expended material. Expended materials may be deposited in areas transited by short

tailed albatrosses; however, the rarity of th is species in general and the lack of frequent sightings, chances for its potential interactions with military expended materials would be extremely low.

Pursuant to the ESA, potentially ingestible materials used during training activities under the Proposed Action would have no effect on the Hawaiian petrel, Newell’s shearwater, or short

tailed albatross. Under the MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities (50 C.F.R. Part 21), potentially ingestible materials used during traini ng activities under theFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 26 of 58 Proposed Action would not result in a significant adverse effect on populations of the great frigatebird, masked booby, or other marine bird populations.

Testing Activities

Under the Proposed Action , approximately 3,000 military ex pended materials other than munitions would be used during testing activities. Approximately 60 percent of these items are decelerators/parachutes and 30 percent are chaff and flares. The remaining 10 percent are targets.

Marine Mammals Chaff, flares, and fragments from targets have the potential to be ingested by marine mammals. The impacts of ingesting these forms of expended materials on marine mammals would be minor because of the limited geographic area where materials and other than ordnance are expended during a given event ; t he limited period of time these military expended materials w ould remain in the water column; t he unlikely chance that a marine mammal might encounter and swallow these items on the sea floor, particularly give n that many of these items would be expe nded over deep, offshore waters; and t he ability of many marine mammals to reject and not swallow non

food items incidentally ingested.

The impacts of ingesting military expended materials other than munitions woul d be limited to cases where an individual marine mammal might eat an indigestible item too large to be passed through the gut. The marine mammals would not be preferentially attracted to these military expended materials, with the possible exception of dec elerators/parachutes that may appear similar to the prey of some species such as sperm whales and beaked whales. For the most part, these military expended materials would most likely only be incidentally ingested by individuals feeding on the bottom in th e precise location where these items were deposited. Non

- munition military expended materials that would remain floating on the surface are too small to pose a risk of intestinal blockage to any marine mammal that happened to encounter it.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during testing activities under the Proposed Action is not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment of marine mammals. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during testing activities as described under the Proposed Action :

• May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the blue whale, fin whale, humpback whale, sei whale, and sperm whale

Sea Turtles Activities that expend sonobuoys and air

- launched torpedo decelerators/parachutes generally occur in water deeper than 183 m (600.4 ft.). Because the decelerators/parachutes sink, they are not expected to drift into another portion of the Study Area. Because of the low number of sonobuoy s expended in the open ocean and the rapid sink rate of the decelerator/parachute, the likelihood of a leatherback encountering and ingesting a decelerator/parachute is extremely low. Because of the water depth over which these decelerators/parachutes are deployed, other sea turtle species are not likely to encounter a decelerator/parachute after it sinks through the water

column.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 27 of 58 Pursuant to the ESA, the ingestion of military expended materials other than munitions during testing activities under Alternative 1 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive ridley, or leatherback sea turtles.

Birds The likelihood of foraging seabirds encountering and ingesting expended materials is extremely low since the expended materials sink.

6 .2.3.1.6 Explosions on Land and In

- Air (Birds) Explosives detonated at or just above the water surface, such as those used in anti

- surface warfare, would create blast waves and acoustic waves that would propagate through both the

water and air.

Training Activities The pressure waves from explosives could injure or kill birds while either in flight or at the water surface. Detonations in air during anti

- air warfare training and testing would typically occur at much higher altitudes (greater than 3,000 feet above sea level) where seabirds and migrating birds are less likely to be present, although some activities target incoming missile threats at lower altitudes. At distances beyond those to injury, an explosive detonation would likely cause a startle reaction, as the exposure would be brief and any re actions are expected to be short

- term.

Birds have been observed taking interest in surface objects related to detonation activities and subsequently being killed by a detonation (Greene et al. 1985). Fleeing response to an initial explosion may reduce se abird exposure to any additional explosions that occur within a short timeframe. However, seabirds could also be attracted to an area to forage if an explosion resulted in a fish kill. This would only be a concern for activities that involved multiple expl osions in the same area within a single activity, such as firing exercises, which involves firing multiple high

explosive five in ch rounds at a target area; and bombing exercises, which could involve multiple bomb drops separated by several minutes.

Throu ghout the Study Area, use of explosives would increase from approximately 1,600 explosions under the No Action Alternative to approximately 10,550 explosions. Most of these explosions are from medium

- caliber explosive shells, which would occur in waters gr eater than

12 NM from shore. In water, training activities using explosives would not typically occur within approximately 3 NM of shore.

Most of the impacts from explosions described in the EIS are on land and occur outside of the proposed SUA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities under the Proposed Action would have no effect on the Hawaiian petrel, Newell’s shearwater, or short

- tailed albatross. Under the MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activit ies (50 C.F.R. Part 21), the use of explosives during training activities under Alternative 1 would not result in a significant adverse effect on populations of the great frigatebird, masked booby, or other marine bird populations.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 28 of 58 Testing Activities The Proposed Action would introduce activities within the SUA that use explosives as part of air to surface missile testing, mine countermeasure (MCM) mission package testing, and anti

surface warfare mission package testing. All explosives used in testing activities occur at sea.

While the impacts of explosions on seabirds under the Proposed Action cannot be quantified due to limited data on seabird density, lethal injury to some seabirds could occur. Detonations of torpedoes during testing activities ma y employ static targets that attract seabirds to the detonation site or fish kills from multiple detonations that attract seabirds to possible fish kills could be more likely to kill or injure seabirds. Any impacts related to startle reactions, displacemen t from a preferred area, or reduced foraging success in offshore waters would likely

be short

- term and infrequent. Because testing activities that use explosives would consist of a limited number of detonations, exposures would not occur over long duration s, and activities occur at varying locations, it is expected there would be an opportunity to recover from an incurred energetic cost and individual birds would not be repeatedly exposed to explosive detonations. Although a few individuals may experience l ong

- term impacts and potential mortality, population

- level impacts are not expected.

Testing activities that use explosives have the potential to intersect with transiting short

- tailed albatrosses through testing areas; however, the rarity of this species in general and the lack of frequent sightings, chances for its potential interactions with testing activities would be extremely low

. The spatial and temporal variability of both the occurrence of a short

- tailed albatross and the testing activities conduc ted within offshore locations near foraging areas presents an improbable chance that a direct or indirect impact would occur to this species.

Masked boobies, great frigatebirds, and other species that visit, roost, or breed within the Study

Area would be exposed to explosions used during testing activities in the open ocean. Because of the availability of pelagic foraging grounds, a tendency for seabirds to use nearshore environments where large explosions are not used as part of testing activities, the w idely dispersed locations of testing activities that use explosions, and the widely dispersed locations of seabirds within the Study Area, the chances of injury or harm to seabirds is extremely low. Any mortality or injury of individual seabirds would not represent a significant adverse impact on any population of seabird species.

Under the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities under the Proposed Action would have no effect on the Hawaiian petrel, Newell’s shearwater, or short

- tailed albatro ss. Under the MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities (50 C.F.R. Part 21), the use of explosives during testing activities under the Proposed Action would not result in a significant adverse effect on populations of the great frigatebi rd, masked booby, or other marine bird populations.

6 .2.3.1.7 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets (Birds only) Wildlife aircraft strikes are a serious concern for the Navy because these incidents can harm aircrews as well as damage equipm ent and injure or kill wildlife. Part of aviation safety during training and testing activities is the implementation of the Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Hazard program. The Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Hazard program manages risk by addressing specificFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 29 of 58 aviation saf ety hazards associated with wildlife near airfields through coordination among all the entities supporting the aviation mission (U.S. Department of Defense 2012). At Andersen Air Force Base, the only regular location of fixed wing take offs and landings, a sound cannon is deployed on the runway to discourage birds from accumulating on or near the runway. The plan is reviewed annually and updated as needed. Bird/Animal Aircraft Strike Hazard plans are not required around Northwest Field and Orote Air Field o n Guam, and North Field on Tinian. As a standard operating procedure, aircraft avoid large flocks of birds to minimize the safety risk involved with a potential bird strike.

For the majority of fixed

- wing activities, flight altitudes would be above 3,000 feet, with the exception of sorties associated with air

- to

- surface bombing exercises and sonobuoy drops. Typical flight altitudes during air

- to

- surface bombing exercises are from 500 to 5,000 feet above ground level. Most fixed

- wing aircraft flight hours ( greater than 90 percent) occur at distances greater than 12 NM offshore.

Helicopter flights would occur closer to the shoreline where sheltering, roosting, and foraging of birds occur. Helicopters can hover and fly low and would be used to tow electromagn etic devices as well as for other military activities at sea. This combination would make a potential helicopter strike to a bird possible.

In addition to manned aircraft, aerial targets such as unmanned drones and expendable rocket powered missiles, cou ld also incur a bird strike but the probability is low. No data about bird strikes to drones or expendable rocket

- powered missiles are available.

The potential for bird strikes to occur in offshore areas is relatively low because activities are widely dis persed and occur at relatively high altitudes (above 3,000 feet for fixed

- wing aircraft) where seabird occurrences are generally low.

Training Activities Training activities under the Proposed Action include an increase in aircraft flight. T he number

of s orties leaving Andersen Air Force Base and carriers at sea would increase less than 300 percent relative to the No Action Alternative, as part of strike warfare (air to ground) training at

FDM.

Some bird and aircraft strikes and associated bird mortalities or injuries could occur in the Study

Area under the Proposed Action ; however, no long

- term or population

- level impacts are expected. Aircraft flight lines at sea may overlay transiting short

- ta iled albatrosses through training areas; however, due to the rarity of this species in general and the lack of frequent sightings, chances for its potential interactions with training exercises would be extremely low

. Further, the altitude of aircraft at s ea is likely much higher than a transiting or foraging albatross. Birds of this family follow wakes of ships, slightly increasing the potential for proximity to ships from which aircraft and aerial targets are launched. The spatial and temporal variability of both

the occurrence of a short

- tailed albatross and the training activities conducted within offshore locations near foraging areas presents an improbable chance that a direct or indirect impact would occur to this species. Because the highest risk for bird strike is during take offs andFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 30 of 58 landings, there would be no risk to short

- tailed albatross because this species does not approach

land areas in the Mariana Islands.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of aircraft and aerial targets during training activities under the Proposed Action would have no effect on the Hawaiian petrel, Newell’s shearwater, or short

tailed albatross. Under the MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities (50 C.F.R. Part 21), the use of aircraft and aerial targets during training activities under the Proposed Action would not result in a significant adverse effect on populations of the great frigatebird, masked booby, or other marine bi rd populations.

Testing Activities Testing activities under the Proposed Action would introduce rotary wing aircraft and fixed wing

aircraft. Under the Proposed Action , 320 new activities involving aircraft movements are proposed. The types of activities , locations, and types of aircraft would not differ from training

activities.

For reasons stated in the training section above, disturbance or strike from aircraft or aerial targets are not expected to have lasting impacts on the survival, growth, recrui tment, or reproduction of bird populations. Aircraft flight lines at sea under the Proposed Action may overlay transiting short

- tailed albatrosses through training areas; however, the rarity of this species in general and the lack of frequent sightings, ch ances for its potential interactions with testing exercises would be extremely low. Further, the altitude of aircraft at sea is likely much higher than a transiting or foraging albatross.

The spatial and temporal variability of both the occurrence of a s hort

- tailed albatross and the testing activities conducted within offshore locations near foraging areas presents an improbable chance that a direct or indirect impact would occur to this species. Because the highest risk for bird strike is during take off s and landings, there would be no risk to short

- tailed albatross because this species does not approach land areas in the Marianas.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of aircraft and aerial targets during testing activities under the Proposed Action would have no effect on the Hawaiian petrel, Newell’s shearwater, or short

tailed albatross. Under the MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities (50 C.F.R. Part 21), the use of aircraft and aerial targets during testing activities under the Proposed Action would not result in a significant adverse effect on populations of the great frigatebird, masked booby, or other marine bird populations.

6 .2. 4 PLANTS Of the known major groups found in the Mariana Islands, there are approximately 26 species of

blue green algae, 109 species of red algae, 31 species of brown algae, 71 species of green algae, 10 species of seagrasses, 10 species of mangroves (Ellison 2008, Gilman et al. 2006, Lobban and Tsuda 2003), and an estimated 1,200 species of dino flagellates (Castro and Huber 2000). The majority of military expended material would be used in open ocean areas, where marine vegetation would not be expected to occur.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 31 of 58 6 .2. 5 FISH There are approximately 1,106 marine fish species in the coastal zone of the Study Area (Myers and Donaldson 2003). Migratory open

- ocean fishes, such as the larger tunas, the billfishes, and some sharks, are able to move across the great distance that separates the Mariana Islands from

other islands or continents in the Pacific

.

There is only one marine fish species, scalloped hammerhead shark ( Sphyrna lewini), in the Study Area that is listed as threatened under the ESA. There are two fish species that are candidate species: the Humpheaded wrasse (Sheilinus undulates) and the Great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran). 2006). The scalloped hammerhead shark remains close to shore during the day and moves to deeper waters at night to feed (Bester 1999). A genetic marker study suggests that females typically rema in close to coastal habitats, while males are more likely to disperse across larger open ocean areas

6 .2.5.1 Aircraft Noise Direct injury to fish is not likely to occur from exposure to non

- impulse sources such as subsonic

aircraft noise because non

- impu lse noise sources lack the strong shock wave associated with an explosion.

Training Activities

T raining activities under the Proposed Action include an increase in the number of activities that involve aircraft as compared to the No Action Alternative; however, the training locations, types of aircraft, and types of activities would not differ. The number of individual predicted impacts

associated with the Proposed Action aircraft overflight noise may increase. The primary exposure to aircraft noise may have the potential to expose scalloped hammerhead sharks to sound or general disturbance. However, any potential impacts would result in short

- term behavioral or physiological responses; longterm impacts would be unlikely.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other non

- impulse acoustic sources during training

activities under the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect ESA

- listed scalloped hammerhead sharks.

Testing Activities The number of annual testing activities that pro duce sound from aircraft analyzed under the Proposed Action would increase over what was analyzed for the No Action Alternative. These activities would happen in the same general locations as described under the Proposed Action Training section . The primar y exposure to aircraft noise would occur around ports and air bases. Aircraft overflight noise has the potential to expose fish to sound and general disturbance, potentially resulting in short

- term behavioral responses. However, any short

- term behavioral

r eactions, physiological stress, or auditory masking is unlikely to lead to long

- term consequences for individuals. Therefore, long

- term consequences for populations are not expected. The primary exposure to aircraft noise may have the potential to expose s calloped hammerhead sharks to sound or general disturbance. However, any potential impacts would result in short

term behavioral or physiological responses; long

- term impacts would be unlikely. The potential effects of testing activities under the Proposed Action on fish species would are expected to beFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 32 of 58 limited to short

- term, minor behavioral reactions. Effects to fish populations would not occur as

a result of non

- impulse sounds associated with testing activities under the Proposed Action

.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other non

- impulse acoustic sources during testing

activities under the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect ESA

- listed scalloped hammerhead sharks.

6 .2.5.2 Weapons Firing, Launch, and Impact Noise Activities are spread throughout the Study Area, and could take place within coastal or open ocean areas. Most activities involving large

- caliber naval gunfire or the launching of targets, missiles, bombs, or other ordnance are conducted grea ter than 12 NM from shore.

Sound due to missile and target launches is typically at a maximum during initiation of the booster rocket and rapidly fades as the missile or target travels downrange. Many missiles and targets are launched from aircraft, which would produce minimal noise in the water due to the altitude of the aircraft at launch. Mines, non

- explosive bombs, and intact missiles and targets could impact the water with great force and produce a large impulse and loud noise, but with very short pul se durations, depending on the size, weight, and speed of the object at impact (McLennan 1997). These sounds from weapons firing launch, and impact noise would be transient and of short duration, lasting no more than a few seconds at any given location.

Fish that are exposed to noise from weapons firing, launch, and non

- explosive ordnance impact

with the water's surface may exhibit brief behavioral reactions; however, due to the short term,

transient nature of weapons firing, launch, and non

- explosive imp act noise, animals are unlikely to be exposed multiple times within a short period. Behavioral reactions would likely be short term (minutes) and substantive costs or long

- term consequences for individuals or populations would not be expected.

Training

Under the Proposed Action , explosive bombs (212), missiles/rockets (239), large and medium

caliber projectiles (9,450), and explosive sonobuoys (11) are proposed to be expended during training activities in the Study Area, which would be a 640 percent incr ease over the No Action Alternative. As described above, impacts from weapons firing, launch, and impact noise would likely be short term (minutes) and substantive costs or long

- term consequences for individuals or populations would not be expected. Additi onally, individuals are unlikely to be exposed multiple times within a short period. These activities would happen in the same general locations as described by the No Action Alternative.

P otential impacts on fish from explosions and impulse sound sources can range from no effect, brief acoustic effects, tactile perception, and physical discomfort, to slight injury to internal organs and the auditory system, to death of the animal (Keevin and Hempen 1997). Occasional

behavioral reactions to intermittent ex plosions and impulse sound sources are unlikely to cause long

- term consequences for individual fish or populations. While serious injury and/or mortality to individual fish would be expected if they were present in the immediate vicinity of explosive

ordna nce use, despite the increase in activities under the Proposed Action , the activities are infrequent and widely dispersed throughout the Study Area, and the distribution of potentiallyFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 33 of 58 affected fishes also varies, impacts from at

- sea explosion from trainin g activities would be temporary and localized, and are not expected to result in population level impacts. Scalloped hammerhead sharks have the potential to be exposed to explosive energy and sound associated with training activities under the Proposed Act ion . Training activities involving impulse acoustic sources have the potential to affect the ESA

- listed species present, potentially resulting in short

term behavioral or physiological responses, hearing loss, injury, or mortality. However, given the infrequent nature of training activities involving impulse acoustic sources, the likelihood of these species encountering an explosive activity is remote.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives and other impulse sound sources during training

activitie s under the Proposed Action may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, ESA

- listed scalloped hammerhead sharks.

Testing

T he testing described is within the water and is not dependent on the proposed SUA.

6 .2.6 USFWS New 2015 ESA Listings

On November 2, 2015, the USFWS listed 23 new species. Twenty

- one are listed as endangered (E) , including 12 plants and 9 animals. Two plant species were listed as threatened (T)

. Plants Plants (continued) Bulbophyllum guamense (cebello halumtano) E Tabernaemontana rotensis (NCN) T

Dendrobium guamense (no common name (NCN)) E Animals

Eugenia bryanii (NCN) E Pacific sheath

- tailed bat ( Emballonura semicaudata rotensis; liyang), E

Hedyotis megalantha (paudedo) E Slevin’s skink ( Emoia slevini; guali’ek halomtano) E

Heritiera longipetiolata (ufa

halumtano) E Mariana eight

- spot butterfly ( Hypolimnas

octocula mariannensis; NCN) E

Maesa walkeri (NCN) E Mariana wandering butterfly ( Vagrans egistina; NCN) E

Phyllanthus saffordii (NCN) E Rota blue damselfly ( Ischnura luta; NCN) E

Psychotria malaspinae (aplokating

palaoan) E F ragile tree snail ( Samoana fragilis; akaleha) E

Solanum guamense (berenghenas halomtano) E Guam tree snail ( Partula radiolata; akaleha) E

Nervilia jacksoniae (NCN) E H umped tree snail ( Partula gibba; akaleha) E

Tinospora homosepala (NCN) E Langford’s tree snail ( Partula langfordi; akaleha) E

Tuberolabium guamense (NCN) E

Cycas micronesica (fadang) TFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 34 of 58 All 23 species are based on land within the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and are not present within the proposed SUA . Therefore FAA’s proposed action will have no effect on the 23 species.

6 .2. 7 Conclusion The FAA’s significance threshold for ESA species would occur if the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) determines that the proposed action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existing of the species in questi on, or would result in the destruction or adverse modification of federally

- designated critical habitat in the affected area. The FAA has not established a significance threshold for non

- listed species.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion for the Navy’s MITT project on February 20, 2015. They also concurred with the determinations in the Biological Assessment that the proposed MITT program is not likely to adversely affect, the en dangered nightingale

reed

- warbler, the endangered Mariana crow, the endangered Mariana swiftlet, and the endangered Mariana common moorhen. All of these birds are terrestrial, and outside of the proposed SUA. The 2015 Biological Opinion does not address Ha waiian petrel, Newell’s shearwater, or short

- tailed albatross. Per FAA’s review of USFWS’s website, the Hawaiian petrel is known or believed to occur in Hawaii only . The Newell’s shearwater is known or

believed to occur in Hawaii and American Samoa. The sh ort

- tailed albatross is known or believed to occur in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. USFWS’s website does not show any of the three species to occur in CNMI.

NMFS issued a Biological Opinion for the Navy’s MITT project on June 1 2 , 201 5. The species under NMFS jurisdiction under the proposed SUA include the blue whale, the humpback whale, the fin whale, the sei whale, the sperm whale , the green sea turtle, the hawksbill turtle , the loggerhead turtle, the leatherback turtle, and the scal loped hammerhead sharks

. The olive ridley turtle was not considered in the BO because NMFS considered olive ridley turtle occurrence would be rare and the potential for exposure to stressors from training and testing activities

would be discountable. The BO established monitoring requirements for ESA

- listed marine mammals, sea turtle species, and scalloped hammerhead sharks

.

On July 31, 2015, NMFS issued a Letter of Authorization (80 FR 46111) for the take of 26 species of marine mammals incidental t o Navy training and testing activities including

underwater detonations from August 3, 2015 through August 3, 2020. Mitigation requires monitoring (including lookouts), setting mitigation zones, and annual monitoring reports.

Based on the discussion abov e, the FAA has determined that impacts to biological resources will be less than significant.

6 .3 Climate To estimate global warming potential, 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 NationsFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 35 of 58 Framework Convention on Climate Change 2004) repor ting procedures. All global warming potentials are expressed relative to a reference gas, CO 2 , which is assigned a global warming potential equal to 1. The five other greenhouse gases have a greater global warming potential

than CO 2 , ranging from 21 for CH 4 , 310 for N 2 O, 140 to 6,300 for hydrofluorocarbons, 6,500 to 9,200 for perfluorocarbons, and up to 23,900 for SF 6 . To estimate the CO 2 equivalency of a non

CO 2 greenhouse gas, the appropriate global warming potential of that gas is multiplied by the

amoun t of the gas emitted. All six greenhouse gases are multiplied by their global warming potential and the results are added to calculate the total equivalent emissions of CO 2 (CO 2 e). The dominant greenhouse gas emitted is CO 2 , mostly from fossil fuel combust ion (85.4 percent) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009b, c). Weighted by global warming potential, CH 4 is the second largest component of emissions, followed by N 2 O. Global warming potential

weighted emissions are presented in terms of equivalent em issions of CO 2 , using units of teragrams (1 million metric tons or 1 billion kilograms [Tg]) of carbon dioxide equivalents (Tg

CO 2 Eq). The Proposed Action is anticipated to release greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. These emissions are quantified for the proposed Navy training and testing in the Study Area, and estimates are presented in Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

The potential effects of proposed greenhouse gas emissions are by nature global; individual sources of greenhouse gas emissions are not large enough to have any noticeable effect on climate change but may have cumulative impacts. Therefore, the impact of proposed greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is discussed in the context of cumulative impacts in Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

6 .3.1 MIRC EA/OEA

This document addressed climate change and greenhouse gas emissions in the cumulative impacts section. It referred to the 2010 MIRC EIS/OES estimated annual emissions.

6 .3.2 MIRC 2010 EIS/OEIS Analysis

The annual emission of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas from training and testing activities in the MIRC is estimated to be 127,729 metric tons per year (U.S. Department of the Navy 2010a). In comparison to the United States 2007 greenhouse gas emissions, the greenhouse gas emi ssions associated with the military activities amount to approximately 0.0017 percent, and the incremental contributions to cumulative impacts are negligible.

6 .3.3 MITT 2015 EIS/OEIS Analysis Greenhouse gas emissions were calculated for ships and aircraf t, which contribute the majority of emissions associated with training and testing in the Study Area. Greenhouse gas emissions from minor sources such as munitions, weapons platforms, and auxiliary equipment were considered negligible and were not calculat ed. Ship greenhouse gas emissions were estimated by determining annual ship fuel (typically diesel) use based on proposed activities and multiplying total annual ship fuel consumption by the corresponding emission factors for CO 2 , CH 4 , and

N 2 O. Aircraft greenhouse gas emissions were calculated by multiplying jet fuel use rates by the total operating hours, by the corresponding jet fuel emission factors for CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O, and by the total annual sorties. Only the jet fuel emissions are relevant to the proposed SUA, but the Navy’s calculations do not separate them so all emissions are reported in the table below:FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 36 of 58 Alternative Annual Emissions (Teregrams)

CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 CO 2 Equivalent ( Eq )

No Action Alternative 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.21

Proposed Alternative 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.75

Increase in emissions for Proposed Alternative compared to No Action

Alternative 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.54

Ship and aircraft greenhouse gas emissions are compared to U.S. 2009 greenhouse gas

emissions. The estimated CO 2 Eq emissions from the No Action Alternative are 0.0032 percent

of the total CO 2 Eq emissions generated by the United States in 2009. The estimated CO 2 Eq

emissions from the Proposed Alternative would increase because of increased training and testing activit ies to about 0.0113 and 0.0124 percent of the total CO 2 Eq emissions, respectively, generated by the United States in 2009.

T he changes in air quality would be measurable from the proposed increases in training and testing activities , but would still be below applicable standards and guidelines . Therefore, the Proposed Action would not be expected to appreciably contribute to greenhouse gas emissions

.

6 .3.4 Conclusion The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Climate. Based on the analysis presented in the Air Quality section , and the reasons summarized above, the changes in air quality would be measurable, but would still be below applicable standards and guidelines; therefore, the FAA has determined that the project will have less than si gnificant impacts on

climate.

6 .4 Coastal Resources The Proposed SUA would occur entirely over open ocean and above ground level. All coral reefs within the Study area are close to shore. R

- 7201A starts three NM from FDM. The three Warning areas are more than nine NM 5 away from shore. Therefore, this impact category is not applicable.

6 .5 Department of Transportation Act: Sec. 4(f) / Recreational Resources Designation of airspace for milit ary flight operations is exempt from section 4(f). The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105

- 85) provided that "[n]o military flight operations (including a military training flight), or designation of airspace for such

an operation, may be treated as a transportation program or project for purposes of section 303(c) of title 49, United States Code.

5 Several distances were measured using Google Earth to determine the distance from shore, including between the shore of FDM to the edge of R

- 7201A, the shore of Guam to W

- 11, and from the shore of Saipan to W

- 13.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 37 of 58 Implementation of the proposed changes to SUA and expansion of the DZ from 10 NM to 12

NM would not affect recreational fishi ng within the Study Area because most recreational fishing primarily occurs within three miles from shore at Guam and Saipan. The boating distance from Saipan (nearest island) to FDM is 45 NM, which is greater than the normal boating distance

of three NM f or most recreational fishing.

The proposed Action does not require the use of publically owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge or national, state, or local significance. The Proposed Action does not require the use of land from an historic site of national, state, or local significance. Therefore, there are negligible to no impacts to recreational resources from the proposed changes to the SUA.

6 .6 Farmlands The Proposed Action would occur in airspace entirely over open ocean and above ground level. Therefore, this impact category is not applicable.

6 .7 Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste , and Pollution Prevention

6 .7.1 MIRC EA/OEA The Proposed Action would occur entirely over open ocean and above ground level. The Proposed Action would not result in a change in the level of training activities and they would not differ in scope, nature, or location from those analyzed in the MIRC EIS/OEIS.

6 .7.2 MIRC 2010 EIS/OEIS Analysis Some training materials, including gun ammunition, bombs, missiles, targets, chaff, and flares, are expended on the range and not recovered. Items expended on the water, and fragments that are not recognizable as expended material (e.g., flare residue or c andle mix), typically are not recovered. A small percentage of training items containing military explosives fail to function properly, and, if not recovered, remain on the range as UXO. T he EIS/OEIS describes potential activity effect from hazardous mater ials by range activity. The types of effects that could result from the changes to the SUA from aircraft overflights include : unintentional release of petroleum, oils and lubricants during aircraft mishap ; release of hazardous mater ials from

ordnance deton ations; deposition of unexploded ordnance ( UXO ) , and release of expended training materials.

There are specific requirements and restrictions categorized for air, maritime, and shore training as well as specific requirements and restrictions pertaining to air/air support training, naval ships training, land training, amphibious training, and underwater demolitions. The specific protective

measures related to overflights in the SUA include the following:

• Do not use live cluster weapons, live scatterable mun itions, fuel air explosives, incendiaries, or bombs greater than 2,000 lb (FDM

– Live and Inert Bombing, Live Fire Guns, Naval Surface Fire Support).

• Emergency fuel release may only be conducted in designated aircraft emergency fuel release areas. If desig nated emergency fuel release areas are unavailable, fuel may be

released as directed at locations at least 12 NM from any land, sea mound or island, in depths greater than or equal to 1,000 fathoms (6,000 f ee t) of water and at an altitude safe for flight o r as directed to ensure complete evaporation of the fuel.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 38 of 58 • Ordnance may be jettisoned in designated emergency jettison areas only. If designated emergency jettison areas are unavailable, ordnance may be jettisoned at locations at least 12 nm from any land, sea mound or island, in depths greater than or equal to 1,000 fathoms (6,000 f ee t) of water and at an altitude safe for flight or as directed.

Expended training material can leak or leach small amounts of toxic substances as they degrade and decompose. Th e EIS/OEIS Table 3.2

- 2 lists the hazardous constituents of common training munitions. These items decompose very slowly, so the volume of expended material that decomposes within the training areas, and the amounts of toxic substances being released to the environment, gradually increase over the period of military use. In ocean waters, sediment transport via currents can eventually disperse these contaminants outside training areas where they will be present at relatively lower concentrations compared to t hose in the training ranges and, thus, have no measurable effect on the open ocean environment.

Bombs that strike FDM would release a small percentage of munition constituents that are not consumed in the detonation and ensuing explosion. This amount woul d be further reduced by wind transporting some of the munition constituents to the southwest away from the island and rapidly mixing with the surrounding air before being deposited into the ocean. Munition constituents deposited on land are eventually carr ied out to the ocean by percolating surface water through the limestone formations. For this reason, the impact of hazardous materials in

bombs on FDM would also be minimal.

Aerial targets are used for testing and training purposes. Most air targets contain jet fuels, oils, hydraulic fluid, batteries, and explosive cartridges as part of their operating systems. Fuel is shut off by an electronic signal, the engine stops, and the target begins to descend. A parachute is activated and the target descends to the ocean surface where range personnel retrieve it. Some targets are actually hit by missiles and fall into the range.

6 .7.3 MITT 2015 EIS/OEIS Analysis Training Activities

Under the Proposed Action , strike warfare training activities on FDM would include the use of explosive ordnance. The impacts of explosive byproducts on sediment and water quality would be indirect, short term, local, and negative. Chemical, physical, or biological changes in sediment or water quality would not be detectable beca use of the rapid mineralization and dissolution of explosive byproducts in marine environments.

The Proposed Action would increase the number of training activities and the amount of explosive ordnance used. The estimated amounts of associated residual ex plosive materials would increase to about 9,772 lb. per year. Approximately 1,687 lb. per year of residual explosives would remain from high

- explosive ordnance used during training activities because of

ordnance failure and low

- order detonations. While the amount of residual explosive materials would increase by about 500 percent under the Proposed Action , impacts on water quality of explosive materials would be short term and localized due to rapid degradation in water. Residual explosive materials would b e limited to a small area surrounding military expended materials. Based on previous studies and the low residence time of residual explosive materialsFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 39 of 58 in marine sediments, residual explosive materials would have short

- term, localized impacts on

marine sed iments under the Proposed Action

.

Testing Activities Residual explosive materials from harpoon and surface to surface missiles, sonobuoys, medium caliber explosive rounds and explosive torpedoes during testing are estimated at 1,075 lb. per year. A percen t increase for residual explosive materials released from testing activities under the Proposed Action cannot be evaluated because these proposed testing activities are not currently

conducted under the No Action Alternative. Based on the amount of residua l explosive materials deposited in the Study Area, low leaching rates, and rapid degradation of explosive materials and the low residence time of residual explosive materials in marine sediments, impacts of residual explosive materials on sediments and wat er quality under the Proposed Action would be

localized and short

- term.

6 .7.4 Conclusion Because training activities are conducted in areas and facilities where access by the public is not allowed, human health risk from the increased storage, use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous substances associated with training activities will remain the same. However, risk of exposure of the environment to hazardous substances may increase. Compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of a ssociated management plans should reduce the increased risk of environmental exposure.

Although the Proposed Action would have the potential to increase the use and disposal of hazardous materials as a result of increased training activities, training act ivities would continue to be conducted in accordance with applicable Federal, Guam and CNMI regulations, and applicable Service instructions. With adherence to established protective measures (specific to use of SUA) listed above in the MIRC 2010 EIS/OEIS Analysis section , impacts from hazardous materials from 2010 Proposed Action would not be considered significant.

The FAA has not established a specific significant impact threshold for hazardous materials,

solid waste , and pollution prevention . Per the a nalysis above, the FAA has determined the

establishment of t he proposed SUA will have no significant impacts from hazardous materials,

solid waste , and pollution prevention

.

6 .8 Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources

6 .8.1 MIRC EA/OEA

There are also no land

- based ground disturbing activities proposed in the SUA discussed in the EA/OEA. Thus, there will be no effect to historic properties/cultural resources, as none have been specifically identified in the project study area , and those issues related to this resource have been addressed in the MIRC 2009 Cultural Resources Programmatic Agreement and analyzed in the MIRC EIS/OEIS.

The 2009 Programmatic Agreement was developed to satisfy the National Historic Preservation

Act consu ltation requirements as part of the MIRC EIS/OEIS. The 2009 MIRC Programmatic Agreement covers all undertakings discussed within the MIRC EIS/OEIS and specifically noted the MIRC study area included “property and land under the jurisdiction of the DoD and otherFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 40 of 58 entities, including 450,187 nautical miles of open ocean and littorals”, it focuses discussion on requirements for only those activities in certain locations where there is a potential to impact cultural resources. Cultural resources that may be pres ent in the open ocean areas beneath W

517, R

- 7201, or the seven Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) locations, will not be adversely impacted since activities analyzed in the MIRC EIS/OEIS will most likely occur on the surface, above the water or just below the surface water column and not on the ocean floor. Further, the designation of SUA and Danger Zone as analyzed in the MIRC Airspace EA/OEA will have no effect on any resources which may be present. (Personal Communication, John Van Name, Navy contractor, 11/2/16)

The 2009 Programmatic Agreement includes Training Constraint Maps that identify locations of

off

- limits or No Training (NT) areas and Limited Training (LT) areas. Field monitoring and reporting requirements are stipulated, and the reports are provided to the appropriate Historic Preservation Officer. The proposed SUA does not overlay any of the off

- limit, NT and LT areas.

Both Guam and CNMI Historic Preservation Offices were provided copies of the Draft EA/OEA. In addition, public meetings on the Draft EA/OEA were conducted on Guam and Saipan on January 15 and 17, 2013, respectively. (Personal Communication, John Van Name, Navy contractor, 11/2/16)

The 2009 Programmatic Agreement for the MIRC is applicable for purposes of this EA /O EA

. Therefore, the EA/OEA concluded that new/additional consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office is not required

.

6 .8.2 MIRC 2010 EIS/OEIS Analysis Although no field surveys for cultural resources were conducted in deep water, an extensive literature review of all known submerged cultural resources in Micronesia was conducted by the Submerged Cultural Resources Unit of the National Park Service (NPS) (Carrell et al . 1991a). In addition, several shallow

- waters areas in the Mariana Islands, including Guam, Saipan, and Tinian, were surveyed for cultural resources by the NPS and U.S. Navy divers. No cultural

resources surveys were conducted in open waters, although several World War II ( WWII ) submerged cultu ral resources are likely to occur in the open ocean areas beneath W

- 517, R

- 7201, or the seven Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) locations 6

.

T he training activities that could potentially affect the submerged cultural resources incl ude live

fi re and inert bombing. T he training activities will most likely occur on the surface, above the water or just below the surface water column and not on the ocean floor. While submerged

cultural resources could be exposed to direct ordnance strikes, the trai ning exercises are intermittent and widely dispersed, which decreases the likelihood that a given area would be subjected to repeated exposure. Most ordnance firing oc curs in areas greater than 12 NM offshore. The velocity of ordnance would rapidly decreas e upon contact with the water. As a result, expended ordnance would be moving at slow speeds by the time it travels through the water column and reaches the sea floor. Consequently, ordnance strikes would cause little or no physical damage to submerged cul tural resources . The prob ability of ordnance striking a

6 Page 3.13

- 13, 2010 MIRC EIS/OEISFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 41 of 58 shipwreck or other WWII submerged cultural resources is extremely low based on the widely dispersed nature of these resources and the training exercises. If ordnance were to strike these resources, li ttle or no damage to the resources would be expected based on the slow speed the ordnance would be traveling upon contact. Although the increased training frequency will represent a slight increase in overall impacts to submerged cultural resources

, non

- explosive

ordnance strikes offshore and in territorial waters would have no significant impact on submerged cultural resources under the Proposed Action

.

6 .8.3 MITT 2015 EIS/OEIS Analysis

Farallon de Medinilla (FDM) A preliminary archaeological field survey of Farallon de Medinilla (FDM) was conducted in 1996 (Welch 2010). No archaeological sites or isolated non

- modern artifacts were observed. Only modern debris associated with the military use of the island was obser ved.

Mariana Islands Range Complex Programmatic Agreement A Programmatic Agreement was negotiated for all military training activities proposed under the

Preferred Alternative for the MIRC based on consultations with the Guam State Historic

Preservation O ffice, CNMI Historic Preservation Office, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Park Service. The training constraints map identifies 13 No Training areas (eight on Guam and five on Tinian) and 35 Limited Training areas (20 on Guam

an d 15 on Tinian), refined from the previous Military Operations Area constraints map boundaries (U.S. Department of Defense 2009). Limited Training areas are defined as pedestrian traffic areas with vehicular access limited to designated roadways and/or the use of rubber

- tired vehicles. No pyrotechnics, demolition, or digging is allowed without prior consultation with the appropriate Historic Preservation Office. In addition to establishing No Training and Limited Training areas, stipulations for additional cultural resources investigations in un

- surveyed areas; archaeological monitoring and conditions documentation of military use of ingress and egress paths and training areas; and preparation of field reports were also implemented.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Deposition of non

- explosive practice munitions, sonobuoys, and military expended materials other than ordnance may affect submerged cultural resources through possible sudden impact of resources on the seafloor or the simple settling of military expended materials on top of submerged cultural resources. Most anticipated expended munitions would be small objects and fragments that would slowly drift to the seafloor after striking the ocean surface. Larger and heavier objects such as non

- ex plosive practice munitions could strike the ocean surface with velocity, but their trajectory would be slower as they move through the water. If expended materials should sink in the vicinity of or on a submerged cultural resource, the expended

materials w ould not affect the archaeological or historic characteristics of the submerged historic resource that contribute to its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places or the World Heritage List. However, the likelihood of expended materials eith er impacting or landing on submerged historic resources is very low because the Navy routinely avoids known submerged

obstructions.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 42 of 58 6 .8.4 Conclusion The FAA has not established a specific significant impact threshold for historical, architectural,

archeol ogical, and cultural resources. Regulations at 36 CFR 800.8(a) state that an adverse effect finding does not automatically trigger a significant impact.

In December 2016, FAA verified that no new cultural resources have been designated within the

Area of Potential Effect 7

. Per the analysis above, the FAA has determined that the 2009 Programmatic Agreement from the 2010 MIRC EIS/OEIS is applicable to the 2013 MIRC

EA/OEA and 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS

, and no additional consultation with the Historic

Preservation Officer was warranted for the Proposed Action , and the Proposed Action will have a no adverse effect on any resources under the Proposed SUA

.

6 .9 Land Use

6 .9.1 MIRC EA/OEA

FDM lies under R

- 7201. DoD live

- fire training is the only land use permitted on FDM. The Navy has leased FDM from CNMI since 1971 and in 1983 negotiated a 50

- year lease with an option to renew for another 50 years. Impact areas are restricted to the interior mesic flat ecosystem in the northern two thirds of the island and most of the southern peninsula, including the western cliffline ecosystem. No live

- fire training is allowed in the coastal ecosystem. FDM is the only land under the existing SUA and close to the proposed SUA. Proposed changes to the SUA and expansion of the DZ would not result in a change in land use because training activities would not differ in scope, nature, or location from those approved in the MIRC EIS/OEIS around

or on FDM.

Warning Area s W

- 11, W

- 12, and W

- 13 are all over open ocean, so establishing them will not result in any land use changes.

The EA/OEA states the MIRC EIS/OEIS determined that no significant impact to land use would occur because the training activities analyzed occur more than 12 NM from the shore and above 3,000 feet, and would have no impact on land use.

6 .9.2 MIRC 2010 EIS/OEIS Analysis

FDM is used for live

- fire and inert ordnance training. No maneuver training is permitted on

FDM and the nearshore waters are leas ed to the United States for military purposes specifically for use as a live fire naval gunfire and air warfare air strike training range. As such, FDM and its nearshore area have always been an off

- limits area to all personnel both civilian and military d ue to unexploded ordnance concerns. This restriction will continue and FDM and nearshore areas, including the fringing reef remain a restricted area, which prohibits the entry of all personnel, civilian and military from the island without specific permiss ion from Co mmander, Joint Region

Marianas. Public access to FDM will remain strictly prohibited and there are no commercial or

recreational activities on or near the island.

7 Verification was done using National Park Service data. https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9

- b808

- 4ff8

- a2f9

- a99909164466FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 43 of 58 NOTAMs will continue to be issued at least 72 hours in advance of potentially ha zardous FDM range events and may advise restrictions for certain training events. No changes to existing real estate use or agreements are proposed as a result of the implementation of the EIS/OEIS Proposed Action. Therefore, the proposed activities associ ated with EIS/OEIS Proposed Action would have a less than significant impact on land use.

6 .9.3 MITT 2015 EIS/OEIS Analysis

The EIS did not include a land use section in the EIS. Since the EIS increases the training and testing activities, but does not es tablish any new SUA, land use changes are not expected to result from the Proposed Action.

6 .9.4 Conclusion The FAA has not established a specific significant impact threshold for land use . T he FAA has

determined the establishment of t he proposed SUA will have le ss than significant impacts on land

use per the analysis above

.

6 .10 Natural Resources and Energy Supply Military training involves consumption of nonrenewable resources, such as jet fuel, and materials for the manufacture of training materials su ch as chaff 8 and flares 9 . Increased training operations would increase the consumption of nonrenewable resources and commitment of resources for munitions, chaff, and flares for the proposed action. See Table 2

- 8 in the 2010 EIS/OEIS for the changes to the annual training activities.

The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Natural Resources and Energy Supply, however a factor to consider in determining whether the action would have a significant impact is

whether the proposed action would have a measureable effect on local supplies of energy or

natural resources . FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix A, Section 13. While the energy use of Proposed Action would increase due to the additional training activities , the amount and rate of consumption of resources would not significantly change, and would not result in significant environmental impacts, or the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources.

The proposed action would not have the potential to cause demand to exceed the available or future supplies of these resources and therefore there would not be a significant impact to natural resources or energy supply. DoD policies and directives for oper ations at every level mandate minimization of the use of energy resources wherever possible without compromising safety of training activities.

8 Chaff is a self

- protection device that permits an aircraft threatened by enemy radar

- directed munitions to distract and/or avoid the threat. Although the chaff may be ejected from the aircraft using a small pyrotechnic charge, the chaff itself is not explosive. Depending on the chaff used, plastic or nylon pieces, a felt piece, or 2

- by 3

- inch square of parchment paper can fall to the ground with each released chaff

bundle.

9 Flares are used in pilot training to develop the near instinctive reactions to a threat that are critical to combat survival. Flares ignite upon ejection from the aircraft and burn completely within approximately 3.5 to 5 seconds, or approximately 400 to 5 00 feet from its release point.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 44 of 58 The FAA has not established a specific significant impact threshold for natural resources and energy supply. Per the discussion above, the FAA has determined the establishment of t he proposed SUA will have less than significant impacts on natural resources and energy supply

.

6 .11 Noise and Noise

- Compatible Land Use

6 .11.1 MIRC EA/OEA Proposed changes to SUA would not result in training activities that differ in scope, nature, or location from those approved in the MIRC EIS/OEIS.

6 .11.2 MIRC 2010 EIS/OEIS Analysis In general, under the Proposed Action , the number of noise

- generating training activities woul d increase. This increase in many of activities listed in Section 3.5.3.2 would not result in general

increases in noise levels. Sound

- generating events under the Proposed Action are intermittent,

occur in remote or off

- limit areas, and do not expose human receptors to high noise levels since the proposed SUA is uninhabited.

The primary sound sources of noise in the portions of the 2010 MIRC EIS analyzing the impacts to the proposed R7201

- A and W

- 11, W

- 12, and W

- 13 are aircraft and training activities . The only source of noise on the uninhabited Farallon de Medinilla (FDM) is periodic military

bombardment and aircraft overflights. Land explosion noise in the MIRC typically involves active explosive demolition practice, explosive ordnance disposal (EOD), act ive bombing practice, offshore bombardment, artillery and small arms fire.

The type and quantity of ordnance expended depends highly on the training objectives and range

utilized. By far the greatest amount of land explosion noise occurs in the FDM area M issile and target launch noise occurs in the MIRC in an infrequent manner, and only during scheduled activities. Due to safety concerns associated with launch activities, a large buffer zone of several

square miles is typically instituted. Noise due to mis sile and target launch activities is typically

maximum at the point of initiation and rapidly fades as: a) the missile or target reaches optimal

thrust conditions at which time thermal equilibrium of gasses surrounding the exhaust nozzle occur; and b) the missile or target reaches an adequate downrange distance.

The Offshore Operations are some of the training activities that contribute to noise in the proposed SUA areas. Under the Proposed Action , the number of activities occurring within W

517 and FDM are expected to increase from 552 activities to 2,542 annually. Offshore major exercises are expected to increase as well, though not expected to contribute (outside of aircraft overflights over lan d and ordnance use) to community noise levels. The majority of these activities are expected to be associated with BOMBEX activities. The ordnance used in this training is expected to remain similar and include inert training munitions (e.g., MK

- 76, BDU

45 , BDU

- 48, BDU

- 56), and live MK

- 80

- series bombs. T he loudest sounds would be from live

MK

- 80

- series bombs, with SELs ranging between 110 dBA and 125 dBA, with peak sound levels being much higher. While the total number of annual activities is high, the aver age number of daily activities is less than ten and would still not contribute to equivalent noise levels. For example, assuming ten activities occur an hour, each involving the use of a live MK

80 series bomb, and respective detonations occurring in the s ame location, this operation wouldFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 45 of 58 produce a hourly L eq of approximately 65 dBA at a distance of 180 feet. This increase in number of activities and detonations may affect non

- human sensitive receptors on FDM from increased numbers of potentially disturbin g impulse noises. However, current practices of targeting areas that are the least sensitive for nesting and roosting (eastern cliffs, northern portion of island) of sensitive species aim to reduce any direct effect from ordnance activities, though there m ay still be acoustic signatures that cause temporary disturbance. Impacts to human receptors would be minimal because the offshore areas are remote from populated areas, participants are all beyond safe distances, and there are no sensitive human receptors in the vicinity.

GUNEX. Surface

- To

- Surface GUNEX takes place in the open ocean offshore areas of MIRC to provide gunnery practice for Navy and Coast Guard ships utilizing shipboard gun systems and

small craft crews utilizing small arms. GUNEX training ac tivities conducted in W

- 517 involve only surface stationary targets such as a MK

- 42 Floating At Sea Target (FAST) or MK

- 58 marker (smoke) buoys. The systems employed against surface targets include the 5

- in,76

- mm, 25

- mm chain gun, 20

- mm Close In Weapon Sys tem (CIWS), .50 caliber machine gun, 7.62 mm machine gun, small arms, and 40

- mm grenades. Air

- to

- Surface (A

- S) GUNEX activities are conducted by rotary

- wing aircraft against stationary targets (FAST and smoke buoy). Rotary

wing aircraft involved in this op eration would use either 7.62

- mm or .50

- caliber door

- mounted machine guns

. Noise produced by GUNEX activities is varied in nature and typically consist of engine and boat noise or aircraft noise (A

- S activities) with intermittent .50

- cal machine gun and

sm all arms firing. Of the ordnance types listed above, the loudest sounds would be from the 5

- inch and 76

- mm guns, both of which are capable of producing SELs of 110 dBA at distances of

50 f ee t from the source. The SH

- 60 helicopters that most typically part icipate in A

- S GUNEX activities can produce single event overflight levels approaching 90 dBA SEL. Effects from these

acoustic sources are minimal to non

- existent to humans as the offshore areas are remote from populated areas, participants are all beyond safe distances, and there are no sensitive human sources in the vicinity.

BOMBEX. BOMBEX (Land) allows aircrews to train in the delivery of bombs and munitions against ground targets at FDM. BOMBEX exercises can involve a single aircraft or multiple

aircr aft which can include aircraft such as FA

- 18, B

- 1B, B

- 2, B

- 52, and H

- 60. F

- 22 and F

- 15 aircraft will be part of the ISR/Task Force and may require use of this training range as well. Noise from aircraft is minimal, as long

- range bombers typically operate at higher elevations (15,000 f ee t above ground level [AGL] or higher), and smaller tactical aircraft operate much lower, though usually above 3,000 f ee t AGL. At these elevations, SELs from direct overflights

of F

- 18s and SH

- 60s would approach 95 dBA and 70 dBA, respectively. The ordnance commonly used in this training on FDM are inert training munitions ( e.g

. MK

- 76, BDU

- 45,

BDU

- 48, BDU

- 56), and live MK

- 80

- series bombs. Of these, the loudest sounds would be from

live MK

- 80

- series bombs, with SELs ranging bet ween 110 dBA and 125 dBA, with peak sound levels being much higher. However, the noise impacts to humans would be minimal because the

offshore areas are remote from populated areas, participants are all beyond safe distances, and

there are no sensitive hum an receptors in the vicinity.

MISSILEX (Air). The Air

- to

- air Missile Training Exercise provides live

- fire opportunities for

aircrews and supporting maintenance. Typically, these exercises are conducted by Air Force and Navy fighter aircraft, firing live m issiles against unmanned, air

- launched drones or flares.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 46 of 58 Historically, these events have accompanied COCOM

- level exercises and take place in Warning Areas at significant range (60 NM or greater) from inhabited areas, negating potential noise impacts on loc al populace.

The MIRC EIS/OEIS determined that airborne noise generated by training and testing activities would have no substantial environmental effects on human sensitive receptors because noise from training activities in the MIRC would be dispersed and intermittent, so it would not contribute to public long

- term noise levels; and R

- 7201A, and W

- 11, W

- 12, and W

- 13 training areas are remote and isolated from the general public, so no sensitive receptors would be exposed to noise events occurring within R7201A

. Therefore, the Proposed Action will have a less than significant noise impacts.

6 .11.3 2015 MITT EIS EIS/OEIS Analysis Aircraft Overflight Noise Military aircraft originating from Guam would most often transit to one of the three warning

areas located south of Guam (Figure 3.12

- 2). Warning Area (W)

- 517 overlays deep ocean waters

and is located south

- southwest of Guam. The northernmost boundary of W

- 517 is approximately

8 NM from the southern tip of Guam (Figure 3.12

- 2). W

- 517 provides a large SU A area extending from surface to unlimited altitude (Table 3.12

- 1). W

- 517 is constrained by commercial

air traffic lanes to the east and west. W

- 11A/B is located east of W

- 517 and also overlays deep

ocean waters. The northernmost boundary of W

- 11 is approx imately 30 NM south

- southeast of the southern tip of Guam. W

- 12 is adjacent to the southern boundary of W

- 517 and extends SUA approximately 30 NM farther south. The northernmost boundary of W

- 12 is approximately 120

NM from southern Guam. A ircraft are flyi ng at an altitude of 5,000 ft. [1,500 m] and at a subsonic airspeed [400 knots]) (U.S. Department of the Navy 2009). Exposure to fixed

- wing aircraft noise would be brief (seconds) as an aircraft quickly passes overhead.

Helicopters Noise generated from he licopters 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 fro m the rotors that are generally below 500 H ert z. 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.

Helicopter unit level training typically entails a high volume of 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 2 to 4 hours. Some events requi re 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 to 100 f ee t. Likewise, in some anti

- submarine wa rfare events, dipping sonar is deployed from a line suspended from a helicopter hovering at low altitudes over the water.

The military conducts training and testing activities in operating areas away from commercially used waterways and inside SUA. Most s hipping lanes are located close to the coast but those that

are trans

- oceanic start and end to the northwest of Guam. The proposed SUA is over open waterFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 47 of 58 and there are no human sensitive noise areas that will be exposed to additional noise within the

propo sed SUA as a result of the additional training and testing activities.

Th e EIS analyzes noise impacts to biological resources, and does not include a noise analysis for human noise sensitive area. Since the proposed SUA does not have any human noise sensi tive areas, the Proposed Action will have less than significant noise impacts.

6 .11.4 Conclusion

The FAA’s significance threshold for noise is whether the proposed action would increase noise by DNL 1.5 dB or more for a noise sensitive area that is expose d to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure level

, or that will be exposed at or above the DNL 65 dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB increase, when compared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe. Per the discussion above, the FAA has determined the establishment of t he proposed SUA will have less than significant noise impacts.

6 .12 Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health, Safety Risks

6 .12.1 Socioeconomic Impacts In the western Pacific Ocean, four commercially used waterways link Guam and CNMI with major ports to both the east and west. These navigable waterways are utilized by commercial vessels. Figure 3.2

- 1 of the EA/OEA generally depicts the commercially used waterways and

their relation w ithin MIRC. Guam has one commercial port located within Apra Harbor (Port Authority of Guam 2011). There are three ports within CNMI: Rota, Tinian, and Saipan.

Commercial fishing occurs throughout the Study Area from nearshore waters adjacent to Guam and the CNMI, as well as offshore banks. Sport or recreational fishing also occurs at various times throughout the year when popular sport fish, including blue marlin, mahi

- mahi, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna, are most abundant (Sch ultz 2000).

Commercial fishermen in Guam and the CNMI typically fish in waters that are less than 500 f ee t deep and target the red

- gilled emperor (Western Fishery Management Council 2012). Commercial fishing peaks in summer when sea conditions are calm, b ut occurs year round in some locations (e.g., leeward side of the islands) where conditions are usually calmer. Some

small

- scale commercial fishing takes place in waters deeper than 500 f ee t and focuses on snapper and grouper species (Western Pacific Regio nal Fishery Management Council 2008).

Commercial and recreational fishing activities contribute to the overall economy and cultural heritage in the CNMI and on Guam. The military does not limit fishing activities from occurring in areas of the Study Area that are not being used by the Navy during training activities. The military has been conducting training activities within the Study Area for decades, and has taken and will continue to take measures to prevent interruption of commercial and recreational fishing activities. These measures include the following:

• Range control consists of scheduling SUA with operational units and notifying military

and civilian stakeholders of SUA schedules via NOTAMs and Notice to Mariners (NOTMAR) . NOTAMs and NOTMARs are issued at least 72 hours in advance toFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 48 of 58 minimize potential military/civilian interactions. This process is implemented to ensure that commercial and recreational users are aware of the military’s plans and allow users to plan their activities to avoi d sched uled training activities and the frequency of fishing trips or in the availability of desirable fishing locations due to military activities is not expected to change

.

• Notifying the public via NOTMARs of upcoming activities requiring a temporary

exclusion zone. This provides mariners with advance notice of areas being used by the military for hazardous training activities, and allows mariners to plan accordingly by selecting an alternate destination without appreciable effect to their activities.

The DZ a round FDM would provide a greater level of public health and safety by increasing the geographic extent of restrictions to all private and commercial vessels during hazardous training and testing activities. As indicated above, the Navy’s safety policies a nd procedures would ensure that activities are conducted safely in the controlled training and testing areas. Areas that are not being used by the Navy and other Services for training purposes within the Study Area

will continue to be accessible and availa ble for fishing activities under EA/OEA Alternative 2. The military would maintain its measures to prevent interruption of commercial and recreational fishing activities, as described above. Thus, current measures and protocols would be used for the DZ exp ansion from 10 to 12 NM to allow commercial and recreational fishing boats to select an alternate destination without substantially affecting their activities.

Therefore, potential impacts on the regional economy (commercial and recreational fishing) from implementation of Alternative 2 (MIRC EA/OEA) would not change as a result of the proposed airspace modification.

The FAA has not established a significan ce threshold for socioeconomic impacts

. There would be no significant shift in regional employment and spending or earning patterns as a result of implementation of the EA/OEA Alternative 2. No significant impacts on the regional economy would occur given the extensive size of the training area, the notification process via NOTMARs, and the limited number of commercial fishing vessels. Residential relocation is not required as part of the Proposed Action. The refore, FAA has determined any socioeconomic impacts resulting from the Proposed Action a re less than significant.

6 .12.2 Environmental Justice

No significant impact on air quality would occur because all training events analyzed are within areas designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being in attainment for all criteria p ollutants or in nonattainment areas for SO 2 where the associated total annual emissions

are less than the de minimis thresholds for General Conformity determination

The Navy has specific documented public health and safety procedures in place to ensure that

non

- participants, including children, are not endangered by Navy actions using SUA, including restricting public access to within 12 NM of FDM.

Impacts to subsistence fishermen are not expected. The military does not limit fishing activities

from occ urring in areas of the Study Area that are not being used by the Navy during training

activities as discussed above

.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 49 of 58 Impacts on traditional cultural resources can be an environmental justice concern under EO

12898. There are no traditional cultural resources identified in the Proposed SUA study areas in

the 2010 EIS/OEIS . No significant unavoidable impacts on traditional cultural resources are anticipated to result from the changes that would occur as a result of th e Proposed Action.

The MIRC EIS/OEIS determined that airborne noise generated by training and testing activities would have no substantial environmental effects on human sensitive receptors because noise from training activities in the MIRC would be dispe rsed and intermittent, and training areas on FDM are remote and isolated from the general public, so no sensitive receptors would be exposed to noise events occurring on FDM.

The Proposed Action would occur entirely over open ocean and above ground level. The Proposed Action would not impound, divert, drain, control, or otherwise modify the waters of any stream or other body of water. Therefore, the Proposed Action will not create a water resources impact.

The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Environmental Justice

. Based on the discussion above, the FAA has determined that the i mplementation the Proposed Action would not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or enviro nmental effects on minority and low

- income populations.

6 .12.3 Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks Impacts from air quality, biological resources , hazardous materials, historical/cultural resources, land use, public health and safety, and no ise were analyzed to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and to ensure that any activities address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or

saf ety risks as required in EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks and FAA Order 1050.1F, Exhibit 4

- 1. An assessment of the proposed actions identified no disproportionately high and adverse environmental or health e ffects on children.

The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks. The Proposed Action would occur in airspace entirely over open ocean, above ground level, in an uninhabited area and there are no regular inhabitants that would see or hear aircraft overflights. Therefore, the Proposed Action will not have a noticeable impact on Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks

6 .13 Visual Effects The Proposed SUA is an uninhabited area and there are no regular inhabitants that would see aircraft overflights or would be impacted by lights on aircraft utilizing the warning areas and the RA. Therefore, the Proposed Action will not create an impact to light emissions or visual

resources/visual charact er.

6 .14 Water Resources The Proposed Action would occur entirely over open ocean and above ground level. The Proposed Action would not impound, divert, drain, control, or otherwise modify the waters ofFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 50 of 58 any stream or other body of water. Therefore, the Pr oposed Action will not create a water

resources impact.

6 .15 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts result from incremental impacts of an action when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions over a period of time (CEQ, 1997). Cumulative impacts would occur if incremental impacts of the Proposed Action, added to the environmental impacts of past, present, and reasonably for eseeable similar actions, would result in an adverse effect to resources in the region.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are identified in Chapter 4 of the EA/OEA

. Since the EA/OEA was published in 2013, some of the Actions analyzed in th e Cumulative Impacts chapter are out of date. The FAA used the Navy’s 2015 Mariana Islands Training and Testing

EIS/OEIS as a source of information to update the cumulative impact analysis below :

6 .15.1 Military Actions:

6 .15.1.1 Final Overseas Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Statement for Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low

- Frequency Active Sonar In August 2012, the Navy released a Record of Decision for employing the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Freq uency Active Sonar. The Navy currently plans to operate up to four Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar systems for routine training, testing, and military operations. Based on current Navy national security and operational req uirements, routine training, testing, and military operations using these sonar systems could occur in the Pacific Ocean (including the Study Area), Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea. The underwater sound produced by this project may cont ribute to the cumulative impacts on marine mammals and sea turtles in the Study Area.

6 .15.1.2 Terminal High

- Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Permanent Stationing in Guam

Environmental Assessment

In June 201 5 , the Army released an Environmental Assessment to permanently place and operate a THAAD ballistic missile defense battery at Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) in Guam. The THAAD battery would be permanently located at the Northwest Field (NWF) of Andersen AFB

. The EA also analyzes the potential impacts from the expansion of the NWF cargo drop zone training area that was encumbered by THAAD operations. The THAAD EA/OEA analyzed the environmental effects which might result from the implementation of the Navy’s P roposed Action. Resource areas analyzed included air quality, noise, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, airspace management, hazardous materials and wastes, human health and safety, socioeconomics, and utilities and transportation i nfrastructure. The Army determined no significant impacts would occur as a result of the project, but the project may contribute incidentally to the cumulative impacts to these environmental resources in the Study

Area.

Due to SUA conflicts with the Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Military Relocation project, changes will be made to the Proposed SUA analyz ed in the 2015

Final EA , and a re

- evaluation of the EA is pending.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 51 of 58 6 .15.1.3 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Environment al Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement The Navy published the MITT EIS/OEIS in May 2015, and signed their ROD on July 23, 2015.

The Proposed Action in the MITT EIS/OEIS is to conduct military training and testing activities

in the MIRC, additional areas on the high seas, and a transit corridor where training and testing

activities may occur. These areas are collectively referred to as the MITT Study Area. The Proposed Action includes activities such as an increase in air combat mane uvers which may

occur outside of the 2010 and 2013 MIRC study areas, but within the MITT Study Area. Strike warfare and naval gunfire exercises at FDM would increase under the alternatives.

The MITT EIS/OEIS analyze d the environmental effects which might result from the implementation of the Navy’s Proposed Action. Resource areas analyzed include d sediments and water quality, air quality, marine habitats, marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds and shorebirds, marine vegetation, marine invertebrates, fish, terrestrial species and habitats, cultural resources, socioeconomic resources, and public health and safety. In a ddition, cumulative impacts were analyzed and to take into account potential cumulative impacts associated with increased training and testing activities (including increased sorties) as applicable to other reasonably foreseeable and ongoing actions. The impact findings of the EIS include:

• Past human activities have impacted these resources to the extent that several marine mammal species and te rrestrial species, and all sea turtles species occurring in the Study

Area are ESA

- listed. Several marine mammal species and stocks are also classified as strategic stocks under MMPA.

• Several native forest

- dwelling birds have been extirpated or suffered ex tinction in the Mariana Islands, primarily on Guam because of predation by introduced invasive species. These resources would be impacted by multiple ongoing and future actions.

• The use of sonar and other non

- impulsive sound sources under the No Action Alt ernative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 has the potential to disturb or injure marine mammals

and sea turtles.

• Explosive detonations under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 have the potential to disturb, injure, or kill marine mammal, terrestrial and sea turtle species.

• Explosive detonations and other military training activities on FDM under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 have the potential to disturb, injure, or kill the Mariana fruit bat, Microne sian megapode, and seabirds that nest or visit FDM.

• Under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, proposed danger zones could potentially restrict access to fishing and recreational areas when ranges are in use.

The aggregate impacts of past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable future actions are expected to result in significant impacts on some marine mammal, terrestrial, all sea turtle species resources in the Study Area. The No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2

would contribute to cumul ative impacts, but the relative contribution would be low compared to other actions. Marine mammal and sea turtle mortality and injury from bycatch, commercial vessel ship strikes, entanglement, ocean pollution, and other human causes are estimated to beFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 52 of 58 o rders of magnitude greater (hundreds of thousands of animals versus tens of animals) than potential mortality, strandings, or injury resulting from military training and testing activities. (Culik 2004; International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 2005; Read et al. 2006).

6 .15.1.4 Environmental Impact Statement for Divert Activities and Exercises, Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands The U.S. Air Force proposes improvements to an existing airfield or airfields on U.S. territory near the Philippine Sea in support of expanding mission requirements in the western Pacific. In addition, divert capabilities for current, emerging, and future training activities are proposed. A Draft EIS analyzing environmental impacts associated with the divert activities and exercises was published in June 2012.

The Revised Draft EIS was the second public version of the EIS. It incorporated comments

receiv ed on the 2012 Draft EIS and presented modified alternatives. The Revised Draft EIS public review period was initiated on October 16, 2015. The Final EIS presents three modified alternatives that are the same as those presented in the 2015 Revised Draft EI S and represent a reduced capability from that presented in the 2012 Draft EIS. The Final EIS was published in September 2016.

The EIS found that there could be major adverse effects from the construction phase of the project on cultural, resources, soci oeconomics and environmental justice, and human health and safety within the project area that included Saipan and Tinian islands

. The Modified Tinian Adverse effects could also occur on noise, and socioeconomic and environmental justice

resources. Benefic ial effects could also occur on socioeconomic resources at both Tinian and Saipan. Therefore, this project may contribute to the cumulative impacts on natural, noise, cultural and socioeconomic resources in the Study Area.

6 .15.1.5 Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Military Relocation (2012 Roadmap Adjustments) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement In September 2010, the Navy signed a Record of Decision (ROD) regarding the 2010 Final EIS

for the Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Military Relocation; Relocating Marines from Okinawa, Visiting Aircraft Carrier Berthing, and Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force . The ROD documented the Navy’s decision to implement the preferred

alternatives identified in the 2010 Final EIS for the main base (cantonment), aviation, and waterfront operations to support relocation of approximately 8,600 Marines and approximately 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam. The ROD deferred a decision on the development of a

liv e

- fire training range complex along Route 15 in the northeastern part of Guam.

The 2010 Final EIS concluded that activities on Guam could significantly impact noise, land/submerged land ownership and use, recreation, offbase roadways, socioeconomics, pub lic health and safety, and environmental justice and protection of children. On Tinian, the project was found to potentially have significant impacts on land/submerged land, socioeconomics, and environmental justice and protection of children. Therefore, t his project may contribute to the cumulative impacts on socioeconomic resources in the Study Area.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 53 of 58 In February 2012, the Navy initiated a Supplemental EIS to evaluate the environmental consequences of establishing a live

- fire training range complex on Gu am in support of the relocation of Marine Corps forces to Guam. Scoping meetings for the Supplemental EIS were held in March 2012. On 27 April 2012, the U.S.

- Japan Security Consultative Committee issued a joint statement announcing its decision to adjust t he plans outlined in the May 2006 Realignment Roadmap document. In accordance with the adjustments (the “2012 Roadmap Adjustments”), the Department of Defense adopted a new force posture in the Pacific which provided a substantially smaller Marine Corps re location to Guam. As a result of the 2012 Roadmap Adjustments, the Navy expanded the scope of the Supplemental EIS to also evaluate the potential environmental consequences from construction and operation of a main cantonment area, including family housing , and associated infrastructure to support the relocation of a substantially reduced number of Marines than previously analyzed. The Draft Supplemental EIS was released in April 2014 and supplements the 2010 Final EIS for the Guam and CNMI Military Relocat ion. The Final Supplemental EIS was released in July 2015 and the Navy signed the ROD on August 29, 2015. The project was found to have significant but mitigatable impacts on water resources (groundwater, wastewater, and nearshore waters), biological resou rces (vegetation/plants and some ESA species), cultural resources, and socioeconomic resources, and environmental justice communities. Therefore, this project may contribute to the cumulative impacts to these environmental resources in the Study Area.

Due to SUA conflicts with the Army’s THAAD project, changes will be made to the Proposed SUA analyzed i n the 2015 Final Supplement EIS , and a re

- evaluation of the EIS is pending.

6 .15.1.6 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military Training Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement
The CNMI Joint Military Training Draft EIS/OEIS was published April 2015, and it evaluate d the potential impacts as sociated with alternatives for meeting U.S. Pacific Command Service Components’ unfilled unit level training and combined level of military training requirements in the Western Pacific. The proposed action would establish a series of live

- fire and maneuver ranges and training areas within the CNMI and include amphibious operations on Tinian. The proposed action is to expand existing ranges and training areas (RTAs) and construct new RTAs

within the CNMI for 20 weeks of live

- fire training on Tinian. Therefor e, this project may contribute to the cumulative impacts on natural resources, biological resources , noise, cultu ral,

socioeconomic resources and possibly others in the Study Area.

6 .15.2 Other Environmental Considerations

6 .15.2.1 Commercial Fishing Commercial fishing can adversely affect fish populations, other species, and habitats. Potential impacts include overfishing of targeted species and bycatch, both of which negatively affect fish stocks (Barnette 2001; National Research Council 2002). Comme rcial fishing in the CNMI generally occurs within 30 nm of shore. Fisheries bycatch has been identified as a primary driver of population declines in several groups of marine species, including sharks, mammals, seabirds, and sea turtles (Wallace et al. 201 0). The MIRC EIS/OEIS concluded that the transient nature of training and testing exercises and the minor, localized potential ecosystem effects are negligible. The CNMI Fishery Management Plan (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management CouncilFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 54 of 58 2005) pro vides regulatory procedures and processes to prevent overfishing and overfished stocks. The same conditions would apply for the MIRC EA/OEA.

6 7.15.2.2 Maritime Traffic Section 3.2, Transportation, discusses ocean traffic as the transit of commercial, priv ate, or military vessels at sea, including submarines. Three navigable waterways are used by commercial vessels to link Guam and the CNMI with major ports to the east and west. Primary concerns for cumulative impacts include vessel strikes and underwater s ound. Navy vessel traffic is a small fraction (approximately 2 percent) of the overall commercial vessel traffic (Jensen and Silber 2004). The MIRC EA/OEA analysis determined no significant impact on and no significant harm to maritime traffic would occur.

6 .15.2.3 Ocean Pollution and Marine Debris Ocean pollution and marine debris may originate from land

- based runoff and discharges, spills, dumping, vessels, and atmospheric deposition (U.S. Department of the Navy 2010a). Plastic debris is a major concern for ocean pollution; floating debris has been discovered accumulating in oceanic gyres (Law et al. 2010). However, Navy training and testing activities are implemented in accordance with environmental compliance policies and procedures applicable to shipboard training afloat and pollution prevention as defined in Navy and DoD Instruction

5000.2

- R, EO 12856, and EO 13101. The same environmental compliance policies and procedures would apply for the MIRC EA/OEA; preventive measures to protect water quality would continue to be implemented.

6 .15.3 Concl usion

Under the Proposed Action , the number and types of training and testing activities and the geographical locations in which they are conducted are described in the 2010 MIRC EIS/OEIS and additional training and testing activities are analyzed in the 2 015 MITT EIS/OEIS . No significant contribution of military training and testing activities to cumulative impacts when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were identified in the

2010 MIRC EIS/OEIS and the 2015 MITT EIS/OE IS . The discussions presented in Chapter 3 of the EA/OEA indicated that the Proposed Action would not significantly impact the resources that have been evaluated (public health and safety, transportation, regional economy, and recreation). The evaluation o f other actions that are reasonably foreseeable in the Study Area and other environmental considerations indicated that procedures and processes are implemented to minimize or avoid cumulative impacts.

B a s e d on t h e F A A’ s ind e p e nd e nt re vi e w a nd e v a l u a tion, the F A A c on c lu d e s th a t the P r opo s e d

Ac tion, w h e n c onsid e re d w ith oth e r p a st, p re s e nt, a nd rea so n a b l y f o re s e ea ble f utu r e a c tions, is

not lik e l y to r e s u lt in si g n i f i ca nt c umul a tive imp ac ts when the miti g a tion m ea su re s d e s c r ib e d in

the 2013 MIRC EA/OEA

, the 2010 MIRC EIS/OEIS , the 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS

, the 2009 Programmatic A g ree m e nt enacted to comply with the N ational H istoric P reservation A ct , and

NMFS’s June 12

, 2015 Biological Opinion and July 31, 2015 Marine Mammal Protection Act

Letter of Authorizati on are considered.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 55 of 58 7 INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The FAA has reviewed the following information:

1. Mariana Islands Range Complex Ai rspace Environmental Assessment /Overseas

Environmental Assessment , June 2013

2. Mariana Islands Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement /Overseas Environmental Impact Statement , May 2010

3. The Mariana Islands Training and Testing Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, May 2015

8 DECISIONS AND ORDERS

8 .1 Written Reevaluation As a result of this written reevaluation, FAA determined that the following warranted

consideration due to changes since the 2013 MIRC EA/OEA was issued

.

• T he Navy’s Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT) EIS/OEIS , issued in May 2015, assumes the prop osed SUA from the 2013 MIRC EA/OEA is established

.

• New species were listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered

within the Proposed Action area after consultation for the 2010 MIRC EIS/OES was

concluded.

• Confirmation that no new historic and cultural resources were designated within the project study area since 2013.

FAA independently evaluated the information in the 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS to determine if the activities proposed in the EIS would create any new environmental impacts within the Proposed

SUA that were not considered in the 2013 EA/OEA

. T he MITT EIS/OEIS proposes to increase training operations , add testing operations, and use additional aircraft types in the Proposed SUA that were not analyzed in the 2013 MIRC EA/OEA

. P er the analysis provided above in Section 6 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action , the FAA finds no significant impacts result from

an increase in those operations and additional aircraft types within the proposed SUA

.

As part of FAA’s evaluation of the 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS, FAA verified t he Navy consulted with

USFWS and NMFS to comply with ESA . This consultation resulted in a February 20, 2015

USFWS Biological Opinion, and a January 12, 2015 NMFS Biological opinion . These two

documents co nclude that the Navy’s proposed actions in its 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of various addressed species in accordance with the Terms and Conditions and Reasonable and Prudent Measures identified that prescribe limits on training and testing activities to avoid and minimize impacts to the listed species.

As part of FAA’s reevaluation, FAA found that a n ad ditional 23 species were listed under ESA after the Navy co mpleted consultation for the 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS. All 23 species are based on land within the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and are not present within the proposed SUA. Therefore FAA’s p roposed action will have no effect on the 23 species.FAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 56 of 58 FAA has also verified that no new historic and cultural resources have been designated with in

the project study area for the Proposed Action

, and FAA has found that the 2009 Programmatic Agreement from the 2010 MIRC EIS/OEIS is applicable to the 2013 MIRC EA/OEA and 2015

MITT EIS/OEIS . The Proposed SUA falls outside of the PA’s stipulated training restriction areas, so FAA finds the Navy is in compliance with the PA’s stipulations.

Per the reasons cited above in this section, t he FAA has concluded that the 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS adequately analyzed the Navy’s proposed training and testing activities

, which were

addressed in the 2013 MIRC EA/OEA. In addition, FAA has verified that there are no new activi ties or new information that warrants supplemental analysis for any of the environmental impact categories described above in Section 6 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action. Therefore, pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 9

- 2, FAA has determine d that no new supplemental EA or EIS is required because this WR indicates :

1. The P roposed A ction conforms to plans or projects for which the prior 2013 MIRC

EA/OEA and Navy FONSI have been issued and for the prior 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS and Navy ROD has been filed and there are no substantial changes in the action that are

relevant to environmental concerns.

2. Data and analyses contained in the 2013 MIRC EA/OEA and FONSI and 2015 MITT EIS/OEIS are still substantially valid and there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.

3. Pertinent conditions and requirements of the prior approval have been, or will be, met in

the current action

.

8

. 2 Adoption

In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1 F , paragraph 8

- 2 , the FAA has conducted an independent evaluation and prepared this Record of Decision for the Navy’s Mariana Islands Range Complex Airspace EA/OEA . The FAA has determined that the EA/OEA and its supporting

d ocumentation, as incorporated by reference , adequately assess and disclose the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action. A s a c o o pera ti n g a g e n c y , the F A A p r ovid e d subj ec t m a tt e r

e x p er tise a nd c los e l y c oo r din a t e d w ith the Navy d u r ing the e nvi r onm e nt a l re v i e w p r o ce ss, in c luding t h e p re p a r a tion of the EA/OEA . Based on its independent review and evaluation as described in Section 6 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Section 8.1 Written

Reevaluation of this document , t he FAA has determined tha t the EA/OEA and its supporting documentation, as incorporated, adequately assess and disclose the environmental impacts of the FAA’s proposed action.

Based on this evaluation, the FAA, as the Cooperating Agency, concludes that adoption of the

Mariana Islands Range Complex Airspace EA/OEA , with incorporation of its supporting documentation, is authorized in accordance with 40 CFR section 1506.3.

I n a ddition, the FAA has determined that while the Navy’s MITT project increased training operations and int roduced new aircraft into the proposed SUA, the impacts from the MITT project does not result in any significant new circumstances in the sections of the MITT EIS thatFAA Adoption of the Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment for the modification of airspace within the MIRC in Guam, and FAA WR/ FONSI

- ROD Page 57 of 58 are relevant to SUA, or new information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing o n the Proposed Action and to the adoption of the MIRC EA/OEA

.

8 .3 Finding Of No Significant Impact After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained herein, the undersigned finds that

the P roposed f ederal A ction is consistent with existing national environmental policies and objectives as set forth in Section 101(a) of the NEPA, as amended, and other applicable environmental requirements and will not significantly affect the quality of the human

environment or otherwise include any condition requiring consultation pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.

The review included the purpose and need to be served by this project, the alternative means of achieving them, the environmental impacts of these alternativ es, the mitigation necessary to preserve and enhance the human environment, and the response to public concerns. There will not be any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects from the implementation of the Proposed Action on minority and low

- income populations. Nor will there be any impacts associated with the protection of children from environmental health and safety

risks.

This decision signifies that applicable Federal environmental requirements relating to the Proposed Action have been met. The decision enables the FAA to complete its Rulemaking

a ctions to establish R

- 7201A and non

- rulemaking actions to establish W

- 11, W

- 12, and W

- 13 as described in the Proposed Action.