Virginia Capes Range Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement

Virginia Capes Range ComplexFinal Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS/OEIS)Volume 1Prepared by:United States Fleet ForcesMarch 2009

This page intentionally left blank

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.1 – Bathymetry and SedimentsCHAPTER 3 : AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESThis chapter describes existing environmental conditions for resources potentially affected by theAlternatives described in Chapter 2. This chapter also identifies and assesses the environmentalconsequences of the Alternatives. The affected environment and environmental consequences aredescribed and analyzed according to categories of resources. The categories of resources addressed inthis Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) are listed inTable 3-1:TABLE 3-1RESOURCE VERSUS RESOURCE CHAPTER LOCATIONResource Section Resource SectionBathymetry and Sediments 3.1Hazardous Materials andHazardous Waste3.2Water Resources 3.3 Air Quality 3.4Airborne Noise Environment 3.5 Marine Communities 3.6Marine Mammals 3.7 Sea Turtles 3.8Fish and Essential FishHabitat3.9 Sea Birds and Migratory Birds 3.10Land Use 3.11 Cultural Resources 3.12Transportation 3.13 Demographics 3.14Regional Economy 3.15 Recreation 3.16Environmental Justice 3.17 Public Health & Safety 3.18Atlantic Fleet Active SonarTraining3.193.1 BATHYMETRY AND SEDIMENTS3.1.1 Introduction and MethodsWater depth, bottom topography, and bottom composition are features that define the physicalenvironment within the VACAPES Study Area, which is shown in Figure 1.5-1. Sediments refer to thesoil, sand, organic matter, and minerals, including rock, that underlie or accumulate at the bottom of abody of water.The VACAPES Range Complex offshore operating area (OPAREA) is in the southern portion of theMid-Atlantic Bight, the region between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras. It includes the near-shore areafrom just off the mouth of Delaware Bay south to Cape Hatteras. The western (shoreward) boundary isroughly the 3 nautical miles (nm) state territorial limit and the seaward (eastern) boundary extends155 nm into waters more than 13,120 feet deep.The northern limits of the VACAPES Study Area extend to Cape Henlopen, Delaware. To the south, theVACAPES Study Area extends almost to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina before angling seaward andterminating at the approximate latitude of Cape Fear. This analysis also includes proposed mine warfaretraining areas in the lower Chesapeake Bay, and the 3 miles from the shoreline seaward to the OPAREA.3.1.1.1 Assessment Methods and Data UsedThe proposed activities under each alternative were evaluated to determine their effects on bathymetryand bottom sediments. The primary mechanisms that would cause impacts would be underwater3-1 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.1 – Bathymetry and Sedimentsexplosions and the accumulation of training debris on the ocean bottom. Factors that were included in theevaluation of impacts included the geographic dispersion of training activities, density of debris, andpersistence or decomposition of debris on the ocean bottom.The VACAPES Marine Resource Assessment (MRA) (DoN, 2007) was a key data source that was usedfor assessing the existing conditions for bathymetry and sediments. The MRA compiled and synthesizedavailable scientific literature, including information in journals, periodicals, theses, dissertations, projectreports, and other technical reports published by government agencies, private businesses, and consultingfirms. These included National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reports, including stock assessmentreports, recovery plans, and survey reports. The MRA summarized the physical environment, includingmarine geology, circulation and currents, and hydrography for the study area. Unless otherwise indicated,the existing conditions information provided in this chapter was taken from the VACAPES MRA.Internet keyword searches were performed to determine if information was available that was notcaptured in the MRA. The searches on bathymetry and sediments produced a number of websites thatwere evaluated for information quality and relevance, and that were used as appropriate.3.1.1.2 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsAspects of the proposed actions that likely would act as stressors to bathymetry and sediments wereidentified by analyzing the warfare areas, operations, and specific activities that would be associated witheach alternative. As shown in Table 3.1-1, four stressors would have at least one operation that wouldaffect bathymetry or sediments.Table 2.2-5 in Chapter 2 indicates the types of military expended materials (MEM) that would result fromeach alternative. The types of types of training materials and locations of use were detailed in Tables 2.2-6 and 2.2-7.3.1.2 Affected EnvironmentThe bathymetry and sediments features in the VACAPES Study Area are shown in Figure 3.1-1 andFigure 3.1-2.3.1.2.1 BathymetryWithin the VACAPES Study Area, the continental shelf has an average depth of 246 feet. Thecontinental shelf ranges in width from about 24 nm off Cape Hatteras to about 87 nm off Delaware Bay.It has a seaward gradient of less than 1:1,000 (Hollister, 1973; Kennett, 1982).The shelf break is the seaward limit of the continental shelf and the beginning of the continental slope. Atthe continental shelf break, the ocean bottom drops abruptly along the continental slope in a gradient ofabout 1:10. The continental slope, the most prominent physiographic feature along the mid-Atlanticcontinental margin, extends to water depths of between about 2,000 meters and 4,000 meters.Four submarine canyons, designated Norfolk, Washington, Accomac, and Baltimore, are found within theVACAPES Study Area. These large canyons dissect the continental slope and continue as deep-seachannels on the continental rise.The Chesapeake Bay is relatively shallow, with an average depth of 21 feet. The bay is shaped like ashallow tray, except for the large channel, believed to be remnants of the ancient Susquehanna River, thatruns the entire length of the bay. At the mouth of the bay, the channel terminates at a shallow sill that canrestrict deeper water flow into and out of the bay (Reshetiloff, 2004; Kemp, et al., 2005).3-2 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.1 – Bathymetry and SedimentsTABLE 3.1-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO BATHYMETRY AND SEDIMENTSWarfare Area and OperationTraining AreasMine WarfareDeployment andRecoveryNon-ExplosivePractice MunitionsUnderwaterDetonations and High-Explosive OrdnanceMilitary ExpendedMaterialsMine Warfare (MIW)Mine countermeasures exercise (MCM) Lower Chesapeake Bay Mine countermeasures exercise (MCM) W-50 A/C, W-386, W-72 Mine neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing exercise (air-to-surface) (at sea)Missile exercise (MISSILEX) (air-tosurface)W-386 (Air-K), W-72A(Air-3B), W-72A/B W-386 (Air-K), W-72A Gunnery exercise (GUNEX) (air-to-surface)W-386 (Air-K), W-72A,W-72A (Air-1A), W-50C GUNEX (surface-to-surface) boat W-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (surface-to-surface) ship W-386, W-72 Laser targeting W-386 (Air-K) Visit, Board, Search and Seizure/MaritimeInterception Operations (VBSS/MIO)- shipVBSS/MIO- HelicopterAir Warfare (AW)VACAPES OPAREAVACAPES OPAREAAir combat maneuver (ACM)W-72A (Air-2A/B, 3A/B)GUNEX (air-to-air) W-72A MISSILEX (air-to-air)W-386 (Air D, G, H, K),W-72AGUNEX (surface-to-air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (surface-to-air) W-386 (Air D, G, H, K) Air intercept control (AIC) W-386, W-72 Detect to engage (DTE) W-386, W-72 Strike Warfare (STW)HARM missile exercise W-386 (Air E, F, I, J) 3-3 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.1 – Bathymetry and SedimentsTABLE 3.1-1 (Continued)SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO BATHYMETRY AND SEDIMENTSWarfare Area and OperationTraining AreasMine WarfareDeployment andRecoveryNon-ExplosivePractice MunitionsUnderwaterDetonations and High-Explosive OrdnanceMilitary ExpendedMaterialsAmphibious Warfare (AMW)Firing exercise (FIREX) with IntegratedMaritime Portable Acoustic Scoring andSimulator System (IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)W-386 (7C/D, 8C/D), W-72(1C1/2) (Preferred Areas),W-386 (5C/D) (SecondaryAreas ) Chaff exercise - aircraftW-386, W-386 (Air-K),W-72 Chaff exercise - ship W-386, W-72 Flare exercise - aircraftElectronic combat (EC) operations - aircraftEC operations - shipTest and EvaluationShipboard Electronic Systems EvaluationFacility (SESEF) utilizationW-386, W-386 (Air-K),W-72 W-386 (Air-K)VACAPES OPAREAVACAPES OPAREA3.1.2.2 SedimentsThe sediments in the VACAPES Study Area are typical of the offshore to shelf-edge area, consisting offine quartz sand with a patchy veneer of shells (DoN, 2002). Sediment texture varies from gravel patchesand a fine sand mixture inshore, to medium sand offshore extending to the shelf edge (Reshetiloff, 2004;Kemp, et al., 2005).For the Lower Chesapeake Bay, the sediments consist of a sand and clay/silt mixture upstream of themouth and sand near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay (USGS, 2007).Sediment stability is the degree to which the sediment bed would be mixed or eroded based on thephysical characteristics of the sediments. If the stability is changed, natural processes such as wave action,or water flows could change the erosion or sediment deposition rates and then change the bathymetry ofthe area.3-4 March 2009

76°W75°W74°W73°W72°W39°NND.C.ANNAPOLISMilfordDelewareBayWildwood39°NDELAWARELew esRehoboth BeachSeafordCambridgeAtlantic CityOPAREAOcean CityLexington ParkPrincess AnneBloodsworth IslandMARYLAND38°NCrisfieldNASAWallops IslandW-38638°NVACAPES OPAREAChesapeakeBayCape Charles37°NNEW PORT NEW SNS NorfolkNORFOLKPORTSMOUTHNAB Little CreekNAS OceanaVIRGIN IABEACHW50AW50BW-387A/BW-387A: SFC-FL240W-387B: FL240-UNL37°NDam Neck R6606VIRGINIANORTH CAROLINAW50CW-72A(1)W-72A(2)VACAPES OPAREA36°NR5302CJR5314 A-JR5301Harvey PointR5302R5302BAlbemarle SoundR5302AE - Dare CountyNavy TargetCH GAD - Dare CountyBAF TargetFNags HeadStumpy PtMOAPamlicoMOA BW-72B36°NPamlico SoundStumpyPointPamlicoMOA AR5313CR5313AR5313BR5313DCapeHatte ras35°NS Cherry PointPiney IslandW-11035°Nead CityCherry PointOPAREAATLANTICOCEAN34°N34°N76°W75°W74°W73°W72°WWVPAMDDENJLegendVACAPES OPAREA3 nm Territorial Limit25% to 75% Calcium Carbonate> 75% Calcium CarbonateFigure 3.1-2VA12 nm Territorial LimitGravelly SandSCNCShelf Break (180m Isobath)Warning Area (W)Restricted Airspace (R-)>75%SandandClayMixed Fine-Grained Sand and Silt> 75% Medium to Coarse Grained SandBottom SedimentsMilitary Operating Area (MOA)Open Water (no sediment data)0 12.5 25 50 75 100Nautical MilesVACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-6

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.1 – Bathymetry and Sediments3.1.3 Environmental ConsequencesThe primary effect of the Navy’s training activities in the VACAPES Study Area would be explosions inthe water and the deposition of expended training materials on the ocean bottom and their accumulationover time. The numbers and sizes of explosions that are summarized in Table 2.2-7 were used to evaluateeffects from explosions. Data from Tables 2.2-4, 2.2-5, 2.2-6, and 3.1-2 were used to determine the totalamount training materials deposited annually per square nautical mile of each training area and the entirestudy area.This section considers only the physical effects of these materials on bathymetry and sediments. Theeffects associated with the chemical properties of expended training materials are discussed in Section3.2.2. Effects of explosions and debris deposition on benthic organisms are addressed in Section 3.6,Marine Communities.3.1.3.1 No Action AlternativeExplosions in the WaterAs shown in Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-5 through 2.2-10 and listed in Table 2.2-7, the No Action Alternativewould result in 1,411 explosions in the water each year from training in the VACAPES study area.Explosives would range from the 8-lb net explosive weight (NEW) charges in Hellfire missiles to the944.7-lb NEW charges in the nine MK-84 bombs that would be dropped annually in bombing exercises.All of the high-explosive MK-20, MK-82, MK-83, and MK-84 bombs that would be dropped at seawould be used in areas of deep waters and would explode before reaching a depth that could damage theocean floor or disturb deep sediments. Therefore, explosions in deep marine waters of the VACAPESStudy Area would not affect the bathymetry or sediments of the study area.Each year, 12 explosions of charges up to 20 lbs NEW would be conducted on the ocean bottom inshallow waters as part of mine neutralizations training exercises. Each charge would create a shallowdepression in bottom sediments, and would suspend a substantial volume of sediment in the watercolumn, causing a localized increase in turbidity. The turbidity increase would be short-lived, becauselarger particles would rapidly drop to the bottom and smaller particles would be dispersed by currents.Although the depressions would last longer, they would act as sediment traps, would soon be filled in,and would not have a lasting effect on bathymetry or sediments.Deposition of Expended Training MaterialsTables 2.2-4, 2.2-5, and 2.2-6 provide details on the numbers and sizes of the training materials expendedin each training area. The effects of expended materials from training activities on ocean bottomsediments were assessed as the number of items deposited per unit area of bottom surface. About1,816,383 training items would be expended annually under the No Action Alternative (see Table 3.1-2).Based on the VACAPES Range Complex sea space area of 27,661 nm 2 , this would be about 65.7 itemsper nm 2 . The density would range from less than one item annually per nm 2 in several of the trainingareas to 16,629 items annually per nm 2 in W-50C.Of the 1,816,383 training items, approximately 1,773,019 or 98 percent would be cannon shells (20, 25,30 or 40-mm) or small-arms munitions (.50-caliber or 7.62-mm bullets). These munitions (including thecase) are small, ranging from 2.75 to 5.5 inches long. Because of the small size and low density ofmilitary expended materials, sediment stability on the ocean bottom would not be affected by small-armsmunitions.Other military expended materials may be larger. However, two or more larger pieces would not likelysettle in the same vicinity, because training activities would seldom occur in the exact location, and oceancurrents would move the materials from where they entered the water to where they settled on the bottom.3-7 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.1 – Bathymetry and SedimentsAs a result, sediment stability on the ocean floor would not be affected by larger pieces of materialsexpended during training.Training materials would accumulate in ocean sediments over the entire period of military training, so aone-year analysis does not capture the magnitude of the environmental effects. If the same amounts oftraining materials were used annually for 20 years, the aggregate density of military expended materialson the ocean floor would be about 1,313 items per nm 2 . In W-50C, about 332,585 items wouldaccumulate over 20 years, or an average of one item per 111 square feet (approximately equal to a squarethat is 10 feet per side). Some of the materials deposited would be completely degraded after 20 years,especially metals with a high corrosion potential. Twenty years was chosen to calculate aggregatedensities to give an approximation to the number of materials present, based on the added assumption thatoperations and locations change over time. Eventually, deposited materials would be covered withsediment and incorporated into the ocean floor. This process would occur more quickly for small items,such as bullets, than for large items.Another concern for training material deposition, is the deposition of materials in areas where sandresources, such as sand shoals, usable for beach replenishments are located. Sand shoals are typicallyfound in shallower areas and those of the most value are close to shore. With the exception of Norfolk,VA the Navy is unlikely to operate in very shallow water areas or to use ordnance in the nearshore publicareas. Water areas close to shore typically are crowded with commercial or private vessels that wouldinterfere with training, therefore those areas are avoided, especially if ordnance is used. The water areaswith the most concentrated Navy ordnance activity, are specifically designated training areas, such as thehotbox (see Figures 2.2-3 through 2.2-10), and are not near any shoal areas. Therefore, although theremay be training materials in sand resource areas, the amounts present would not be so prevalent that theywould foul the sand resources.Most of the military expended materials would be non-explosive and thus, harmless, but some of thematerials would consist of metals such as lead. In 2005, the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental andTest Ranges (CFMETR) near Nanoose, British Columbia were analyzed for chemical effects associatedwith expendable components from activities involving sonobuoys, torpedoes, expendable mobile ASWtraining targets (EMATT), and auxiliary dry cargo carriers (ESG, 2005). These expended materialscontain many of the same constituents as training materials used in the VACAPES OPAREA. In theCFMETR study, the analysis focused on lead, copper, lithium, and torpedo fuel. The types of materialsexpended in the CFMETR were similar to the military expended materials deposited in the VACAPESOPAREA.The study found that metal constituents were most likely to concentrate in fine-grained particulate matter,especially when the particulate matter was smaller than 63 micrometers. The findings demonstrated thatCFMETR operations did not cause a measurable effect on sediment quality (ESG, 2005). Assuming theVACAPES military expended materials react to the sediments in VACAPES in a similar manner asCFMETR materials react to CFMETR sediments there would be no measurable effect on VACAPESsediment quality. In addition, based on a density of expended components in the VACAPES Study Areathat would be lower than those in the CFMETR, military expended materials would have a lower impacton sediment quality.In accordance with the NEPA, Navy training activities in territorial waters under the No ActionAlternative would have no significant impact to bathymetry and sediment. In accordance with ExecutiveOrder (EO) 12114, Navy training activities in non-territorial waters would not cause harm to bathymetryor sediment.3-8 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.1 – Bathymetry and Sediments3.1.3.2 Alternative 1Explosions in the WaterAs shown in Table 3.1-2, Alternative 1 would result in 1,453 explosions in the water each year fromtraining in the VACAPES Study Area. As with the No Action Alternative, explosives would range fromthe 8-lb NEW charges in Hellfire missiles to 944.7-lb NEW charges in MK-84 bombs.Impacts from explosions in the water would be the same as those described for the No Action Alternative.All large, high-explosives bombs would be detonated near the surface over deep water, and would notdamage the ocean floor or disturb deep sediments. Increased numbers of explosions would occur forHellfire missiles and underwater detonations using 20-lb NEW charges but, as described for the NoAction Alternative, all effects from these explosions would be localized and short-term.Deposition of Expended Training MaterialsThe effects of expended materials from training activities on ocean bottom sediments in the VACAPESStudy Area were assessed as the number of items deposited per unit area of bottom surface. About2,249,138 training items would be expended under Alternative 1 (see Table 3.1-2). Based on theVACAPES Range Complex sea space area of 27,661 nm 2 , this would be about 81.3 items per nm 2 . Thedensity would range from less than one item annually per nm 2 in several of the training areas to 20,838items annually per nm 2 in W-50C.Of the 2,249,138 training items, approximately 2,196,730 or 98 percent would be cannon shells (25 or 30mm) or small-arms munitions (.50-caliber or 7.62-mm bullets). After 20 years, the greatest density,which would be in W-50C, would be about 416,770 items, or an average of one item per 88 square feet(approximately equal to a square that is 9 feet per side). Throughout the VACAPES Study Area, thedensity would be much lower, about 1,626 items per nm 2 .In addition to the materials described in the tables, Alternative 1 would include the installation of a mineneutralization training area in the W-50C area. This would consist of two relatively small (about 1 squaremile) training minefields, for use with AMNS, RAMICS, and MK-103. There will be 20-40 shapes in thewater of 40-60 feet in depth, both moored and bottom shapes. Concrete anchors would hold the mineshapes in place, one for each mine shape. Each anchor would measure 2.0 to 2.5 feet on each side.Sediment disturbance would occur during anchor placement and could recur with subsequent anchormaintenance activities or during mine shape deployment or recovery. However, all such disturbanceswould be highly localized and short-term, and would not have any lasting effects on bathymetry orsediments.As described in the No Action Alternative, neither bullets and shells nor larger pieces from other militaryexpended materials would affect sediment stability, and they eventually would be covered with sedimentand incorporated into the ocean floor. Based on the studies at the CFMETR, the volume of militaryexpended materials that would result from Alternative 1 would not measurably affect sediment quality.In accordance with the NEPA, Navy training activities in territorial waters under Alternative 1 wouldhave no significant impact to bathymetry or sediment. In accordance with Executive Order (EO) 12114,Navy training activities in non-territorial waters would not cause harm to bathymetry or sediment.3-9 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.1 – Bathymetry and SedimentsTABLE 3.1-2TRAINING MATERIALS IN VACAPES TRAINING AREASTraining Areas and Number of Training Items No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2Entire Study Area (27,661 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 1,816,383 2,249,138 2,298,753Number of items annually per square nautical mile 65.7 81.3 83.120-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 1,313 1,626 1,662R-6606 (33 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 40,054 44,060 44,060Number of items annually per square nautical mile 1,214 1,335 1,33520-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 24,280 26,700 26,700W-50C (33 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 548,766 687,670 687,730Number of items annually per square nautical mile 16,629 20,838 20,84020-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 332,580 416,760 416,800W-72 (15,274 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 169,564 188,492 188,492Number of items annually per square nautical mile 11 12 1220-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 220 240 240W-72A (Air-3B) (808 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 121 121 0Number of items annually per square nautical mile 0.15 0.15 020-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 3 3 0W-72A (Air-1A) (458 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 483,840 792,000 792,000Number of items annually per square nautical mile 1,056 1,729 1,72920-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 21,120 34,580 34,580W-72 (1C1 and 1C2) (360 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 511 511 511Number of items annually per square nautical mile 1.4 1.4 1.420-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 28 28 28W-72A/B (14,643 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 225 248 248Number of items annually per square nautical mile 0.015 0.017 0.01720-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 0.300 0.340 0.3403-10 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.1 – Bathymetry and SedimentsTABLE 3.1-2 (Continued)TRAINING MATERIALS IN VACAPES TRAINING AREASTraining Areas and Number of Training Items No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2W-386 (9,765 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 528,226 582,210 582,210Number of items annually per square nautical mile 54 60 6020-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 1,080 1,200 1,200W-386 (Air-E, F, I, J) (4,683 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 26 26 26Number of items annually per square nautical mile 0.006 0.006 0.00620-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 0.120 0.120 0.120W-386 (Air-D, G, H, K) (3,307 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 30 33 33Number of items annually per square nautical mile 0.010 0.011 0.01120-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 0.200 0.220 0.220W-386 (Air-K) (592 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 6,477 10,284 9,960Number of items annually per square nautical mile 11 17.4 16.820-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 220 348 336W-386 (5C/5D) (464 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 511 511 511Number of items annually per square nautical mile 1.1 1.1 0.720-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 22 22 22W-386 (7C/7D and 8C/8D) (720 square nautical miles)Number of items expended annually 511 511 511Number of items annually per square nautical mile 0.7 0.7 0.720-year aggregate density per square nautical mile 14 14 143.1.3.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)Explosions in the WaterAs shown in Table 3.1-2, Alternative 2 would result in 1,088 explosions in the water each year fromtraining in the VACAPES Study Area. Explosives would range from 0.002-lb NEW charges that areassociated with the cable cutters of the MK-103 mine sweeping system to 415.8-lb NEW charges in theMK-83 bombs that would be used in bombing exercises.As shown in Table 2.2-7, Alternative 2 would eliminate the use of MK-84 bombs (944.8 lbs NEW), MK-82 bombs (192.2-lbs NEW), and MK-20 bombs (109.7-lbs NEW), and would substantially reduce thenumbers of MK-83 bombs (415.8-lbs NEW) used in bombing exercises. However, these changes wouldnot have any effect on bathymetry or sediments compared to the No Action Alternative. This wouldresult because all detonations of large, high-explosives bombs would continue to occur near the surfaceover deep water where they would not damage the ocean floor or disturb deep sediments; this absence ofdamage would not change with reductions in the numbers and sizes of explosions.3-11 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.1 – Bathymetry and SedimentsAlternative 2 would increase the number of explosions used for mine countermeasure and mineneutralization training about eight-fold compared to the No Action Alternative. More than half of theadditional explosions would be from 0.002-lb NEW charges in the cable cutters of the MK-103 minesweeping system. These very small explosions would occur in the water column and would be unlikelyto affect bathymetry or sediment.The remaining additional explosions would result from increased use of Hellfire missiles (8-lbs NEW)and underwater detonations using 20-lb NEW charges, and from new use of the Airborne MineNeutralization System (AMNS) (3.24-lbs NEW) in the study area. As described for the No ActionAlternative, all effects from these explosions would be localized and short-term.Deposition of Expended Training MaterialsThe effects of expended materials from training activities on ocean bottom sediments in the VACAPESStudy Area were assessed as the number of items deposited per unit area of bottom surface. About2,298,753 training items would be expended under Alternative 2 (see Table 3.1-2). Based on theVACAPES Range Complex sea space area of 27,661 nm 2 , this would be about 83.1 items per nm 2 . Thedensity would range from less than one item annually per nm 2 in several of the training areas to 20,840items annually per nm 2 in W-50C.Of the 2,298,753 training items, approximately 2,246,466 or 98 percent would be cannon shells (25 or 30mm) or small-arms munitions (.50-caliber or 7.62-mm bullets). After 20 years, the greatest density,which would occur in W-50C, would be about 416,806 items, or an average of one item per 88 square feet(approximately equal to a square that is 9 feet per side). Throughout the VACAPES Range Complex, thedensity would be much lower, about 1,662 items per nm 2 .In Alternative 2, the Navy would install the mine neutralization training areas as depicted in Figures 2.2-1, 2.2-2, 2.2-3, and 2.2-4. Each training area would accommodate one to four individual minefields withnon-explosive training mines attached to concrete anchors, each of which would measure 2.0 to 2.5 feeton each side. There will be 20-40 non-explosive mine shapes per training area.As described for Alternative 1, sediment disturbance would occur during anchor placement, and couldrecur with subsequent anchor maintenance activities or during mine shape deployment or recovery.However, all such disturbances would be highly localized and short-term, and would not have any lastingeffects on bathymetry or sediments.As described in the No Action Alternative, neither bullets and shells nor larger pieces from other militaryexpended materials would affect sediment stability, and they eventually would be covered with sedimentand incorporated into the ocean floor. Based on the studies at the CFMETR, the volume of militaryexpended materials that would result from Alternative 2 would not measurably affect sediment quality.In accordance with the NEPA, Navy training activities in territorial waters under Alternative 2 wouldhave no significant impact to bathymetry or sediment. In accordance with Executive Order (EO) 12114,Navy training activities in non-territorial waters would not cause harm to bathymetry or sediment.3.1.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThere would not be any unavoidable significant environmental effects as a result of implementation of theNo Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2.3.1.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)As summarized in Table 3.1-3, No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would have nosignificant impact on bathymetry and sediments. Furthermore, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1,and Alternative 2 would not cause harm to bathymetry and sediments in non-territorial waters.3-12 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.1 – Bathymetry and SedimentsTABLE 3.1-3SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVESON BATHYMETRY AND SEDIMENTS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREANEPA(U.S. Territory)Alternative and StressorNo ActionMine warfare deployment andrecoveryNon-explosive practice munitionsUnderwater detonations and highexplosiveordnanceMilitary expended materialsImpact conclusionAlternative 1Explosions in shallow water wouldresult in localized, short-termimpacts. No effects from explosionsin deep water.No effects from deposition ofexpended training materials on theocean floor.No significant impact to bathymetryor sediments.EO 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Explosions in shallow water wouldresult in localized, short-termimpacts. No effects from explosionsin deep water.No effects from deposition ofexpended training materials on theocean floor.No harm to bathymetry or sediments.Mine warfare deployment andrecoveryNon-explosive practice munitionsUnderwater detonations and highexplosiveordnanceMilitary expended materialsImpact conclusionAlternative 2Mine warfare deployment andrecoveryNon-explosive practice munitionsUnderwater detonations and highexplosiveordnanceMilitary expended materialsImpact conclusionExplosions in shallow water wouldresult in localized, short-termimpacts. No effects from explosionsin deep water.No effects from deposition ofexpended training materials on theocean floor.No significant impact to bathymetryor sediments.Explosions in shallow water wouldresult in localized, short-termimpacts. No effects from explosionsin deep water.No effects from deposition ofexpended training materials on theocean floor.No significant impact to bathymetryor sediments.Explosions in shallow water wouldresult in localized, short-termimpacts. No effects from explosionsin deep water.No effects from deposition ofexpended training materials on theocean floor.No harm to bathymetry or sediments.Explosions in shallow water wouldresult in localized, short-termimpacts. No effects from explosionsin deep water.No effects from deposition ofexpended training materials on theocean floor.No harm to bathymetry or sediments.3-13 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTEChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz Waste3.2.1 Introduction and Methods3.2.1.1 IntroductionThis section addresses hazardous and non-hazardous components of the training operations described inthis EIS/OEIS. Some items such as fuels, adhesives, and solvents required for maintenance and operationof vessels, machinery, and equipment are used by the Navy as well as by other organizations andindividuals. Other items such as missiles and chaff are only used in military activities. Terms used todescribe items throughout this section are discussed below:Military Expended Material (MEM) – Military expended material (MEM) refers to those munitions,items, devices, equipment and materials which are uniquely military in nature, and are used and expendedin the conduct of the military training and testing mission, such as: sonobuoys, flares, chaff, drones,targets, bathymetry measuring devices and other instrumentation, communications devices, and itemsused as training substitutes. This definition may also include materials expended (such as propellants,weights, guidance wires) from items typically recovered, such as aerial target drones and practicetorpedoes.According to a 2008 report compiled by the Interagency Marine Debris Coordination Committee(IMDCC), MEM from Navy training and testing missions is not considered a significant source of marinedebris (IMDCC, 2008). In addition, an annual report from the Ocean Conservancy further details themain sources of marine debris resulting from the 2007 International Coastal Cleanup effort, withshoreline/recreational activities and smoking-related activities accounting for more than 90% of marinepollution worldwide (Ocean Conservancy, 2007). More specifically, the report states that on average, landbased activities in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and North Carolina, including picnics, festivals,sporting events, beach outings, and litter runoff from parking lots, streets, and storm drains account formore than 63% of marine pollution. On average, smoking–related products accounted for an additional29% of all marine debris collected in these states. In summary, neither of these studies point to the Navyas a primary contributor to the marine debris problem.In addition to recovering spent training and testing materials whenever possible, proactive BestManagement Practices (BMPs) instituted by the Navy play a crucial role in reducing or eliminating theamount of expended materials introduced into the environment. The Navy P2 Afloat Program detailsmany pollution prevention practices, including shipboard recycling programs, use of non-pollutingtechnologies and materials, reducing excess packaging materials, and eliminating discarded plasticsthrough the use of shipboard Plastic Waste Processors (http://205.153.241.230/p2_documents/navy.html).In summary, this study does not point to the Navy as a primary contributor to the marine debris problem.Military Expended Material Constituent (MEMC) – Any constituent released into the environmentfrom the use of MEM is considered a military expended material constituent (MEMC). MEMC includesconstituents from explosive and non-explosive materials and the emission, degradation, or breakdownproducts from MEM.Non-hazardous Components – Parts of a device made of nonreactive materials, including parts made ofmetals such as steel or aluminum; polymers such as nylon, rubber, vinyl, and plastics; glass; fiber; andconcrete. While these items represent persistent seabed litter, their strong resistance to degradation andtheir chemical composition mean they do not chemically contaminate the surrounding environment byleaching heavy metals or organic compounds.Hazardous Material – Hazardous materials are chemical substances that pose a risk to human health orthe environment. In general, these materials pose hazards because of their quantity, concentration,physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to,3-14 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz Wastepetroleum products, coolants, paints, adhesives, solvents, corrosion inhibitors, cleaning compounds,photographic materials, and chemicals. Hazardous materials are also used in, munitions and targetsbecause they are strong, lightweight, reliable, long-lasting, or low-cost.Munitions Constituents – Materials originating from unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded militarymunitions, or other military munitions, including explosive and non-explosive materials and emission,degradation, or breakdown products of such ordnance and munitions, are called munitions constituents.When missiles, munitions, and targets are used for their intended purpose, component hazardous materialsare considered munitions constituents. Components that contain hazardous constituents includepropellants, batteries, flares, telemetry, igniters, jet fuel, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, and explosivewarheads. Each constituent has the potential to affect human health and the environment through directcontact with individuals, water, soil, or air.Hazardous Constituents – Hazardous constituents can generally be defined as hazardous materialspresent at low concentrations in a generally non-hazardous matrix, such that their hazardous properties donot produce acute effects. The USEPA and the DoD have identified numerous waste streams from Navyvessels that do or may contain hazardous constituents. Waste streams from Navy vessels that maycontain hazardous constituents include hull coating leachate, bilgewater/oil water separator discharges,gray water, cooling water, weather deck runoff, chain locker effluent, elevator pit effluent, andphotographic laboratory drains. Small boat engines discharge petroleum products in their wet exhaust.Hazardous Waste – A hazardous waste may cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortalityor an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness; or pose a present or potential riskto human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed, or otherwisemanaged. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. Part 6901, et seq. regulatesmanagement of solid and hazardous waste.Military Munitions Rule – This rule clarifies when conventional and chemical military munitionsbecome a solid waste, which then may be regulated as hazardous waste under the RCRA. Militarymunitions are not considered hazardous waste under two conditions stated in the USEPA MilitaryMunitions Rule and the DoD Interim Policy on Military Munitions (1997). These conditions covervirtually all the uses of missiles, munitions, and targets at the VACAPES Study Area. Specifically,munitions are not considered hazardous waste when they are: Used for their intended purpose, including training of military personnel and explosive emergencyresponse specialists or for research and development activities, and when they are recovered,collected, and destroyed during range clearance events. Unused and being repaired, reused, recycled, reclaimed, disassembled, reconfigured, or subjected toother material recovery activities.Used hazardous materials and chemical byproducts generated at sea are not considered hazardous wasteuntil offloaded at port. Environmental compliance policies and procedures applicable to shipboardoperations afloat are defined in applicable naval operations instruction manuals. These instructionsreinforce the Clean Water Act’s prohibition against discharge of harmful quantities of hazardoussubstances into or on U.S. waters out to 200 nm. Navy ships are required to conduct operations at sea insuch a manner as to minimize or eliminate any adverse impacts on marine environment. This includesconforming to stringent requirements for hazardous waste discharge, storage, dumping, and pollutionprevention.Hazardous material and waste generated afloat are stored in approved containers and offloaded for properdisposal within five working days of arrival at a Navy port. All commands (ship or shore) can returnexcess and unused hazardous materials to the Hazardous Material Minimization Center (HAZMINCEN)located at their assigned naval station (DoN, 2005a). The Consolidated Hazardous MaterialsReutilization and Inventory Management Program (CHRIMP) provides assistance in the development andimplementation of local hazardous material management. It is available online at3-15 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz Wastehttp://www.naspensacola.navy.mil/logistics/chrimp.pdf. The 2005 Hazardous Materials Minimization,Hazardous Waste Reutilization and Disposal Guide, which is available on the Internet athttp://www.cnrma.navy.mil/environmental/ hazardous_waste.htm, provides points of contact and detailedinformation regarding shipboard hazardous waste and hazardous material turn-in. These documentsprovide a comprehensive compilation of procedures and requirements mandated by law, directive, orregulation. They have a compliance orientation to ensure safe and efficient control, use, transport, anddisposal of hazardous waste.3.2.1.2 Assessment Methods and Data UsedGeneral Approach to AnalysisEach alternative analyzed in this EIS/OEIS includes several Primary Mission Areas (for example, MineWarfare, Air Warfare, and Surface Warfare), and most warfare areas include multiple types of trainingoperations, such as surface-to-air gunnery exercise and surface-to-air missile exercise. Likewise, severalactivities, such as weapons firing, target deployment, are accomplished under each operation. Some typesof MEM, such as bombs, missiles, small-caliber ammunition, and marine markers, are common tomultiple activities.To address potential impacts, the approach to analysis includes characterizing the yearly test and trainingoperations that may contribute MEM and MEMC to the VACAPES Study Area ocean environment. Thissection of the EIS/OEIS reviews the MEM and MEMC associated with training on the ocean range.Specific MEM categories analyzed include bombs, missiles, targets and countermeasures, marine markers(smoke floats), naval gun ammunition, smalls-arms and close-in weapons system ammunition, chaff,flares, and underwater detonations. For each category, a general characterization and quantity used ispresented, followed by a description of the anticipated fate and transport of the MEM and MEMC once ithas introduced into the environment. Potential impacts on environmental resources are addressed in othersections of this chapter as appropriate.Study AreaThe study area for MEM and MEMC is the same as the VACAPES EIS/OEIS Study Area that isdescribed in Section 1.5 and is shown in Figure 1.5-1Data SourcesPrior EAs, EISs, marine resource assessments (MRAs), studies, databases, and websites were reviewed.Numerous federal, state, and local regulations governing the handling, storage, and disposal of waste andhazardous materials (see Appendix K) were also researched.Primary Mission Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsAspects of the proposed actions that are likely to act as stressors were identified by conducting ananalysis of the PMARs, operations, and specific activities included in the alternatives. Appendix Dprovides detailed descriptions of the VACAPES Study Area operations. Table 3.2-1 presents identifiedMEM stressors and their association with specific operations that would occur within the VACAPESStudy Area. Checkmarked cells in Table 3.2-1 indicate that MEM is associated with the operation andthat the activities and associated training item(s) are carried forward for detailed analysis in thisEIS/OEIS.3-16 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteTABLE 3.2-1POTENTIAL STRESSORS ASSOCIATED WITH MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIALPrimary Mission Area and OperationTraining AreasMine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh-Explosive OrdnanceMilitaryExpended MaterialsMine Warfare (MIW)Mine countermeasures exercise (MCM) Lower Chesapeake Bay Mine countermeasures exercise (MCM) W-50A/C, W-386, W-72 Mine neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing exercise (BOMBEX) (air-tosurface)(at sea)Missile exercise (MISSILEX) (air-tosurface)Gunnery exercise (GUNEX) (air-tosurface)W-386 (Air-K), W-72A(Air-3B), W-72A/BW-386 (Air-K) W-72AW-386 (Air-K), W-72A, W-72A (Air-1A), W-50C GUNEX (surface-to-surface) - boat W-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (surface-to-surface) - ship W-386, W-72 Laser targetingVisit, Board, Search, and Seizure/MaritimeInterception Operations (VBSS/MIO)-ShipVBSS/MIO- HeloAir Warfare (AW)Air combat maneuver (ACM)W-386 (Air-K)VACAPES OPAREAVACAPES OPAREAW-72A (Air-2A/B, 3A/B)GUNEX (air-to-air) W-72A MISSILEX (air-to-air)W-386 (Air D, G, H, K), W-72AGUNEX (surface-to-air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (surface-to-air) W-386, (Air D, G, H, K) Air intercept control (AIC) W-386, W-72Detect to engage (DTE) W-386, W-723-17 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteTABLE 3.2-1POTENTIAL STRESSORS ASSOCIATED WITH MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIAL(Continued)Primary Mission Area and OperationTraining AreasMine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh-Explosive OrdnanceMilitaryExpended MaterialsStrike Warfare (STW)HARM missile exercise W-386 (Air E, F, I, and J) Amphibious Warfare (AMW)Firing Exercise (FIREX) with IntegratedMaritime Portable Acoustic Scoring andSimulator System (IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)Chaff exercise - aircraftW-386 (7C/D, 8C/D), W-72(1C1/2) (Preferred Areas),W-386 (5C/D) (SecondaryAreas )W-386, W-386 (Air-K),W-72 Chaff exercise - ship W-386 and W-72 Flare exercise - aircraftElectronic Combat (EC) operations -aircraftEC operations- shipTest and EvaluationShipboard Electronic Systems EvaluationFacility (SESEF) utilizationW-386, W-386 (Air-K),W-72W-386 (Air-K)VACAPES OPAREAVACAPES OPAREA3.2.2 Affected EnvironmentOpen ocean areas are typically considered relatively unpolluted with regard to hazardous materials andhazardous waste. However, hazardous materials are present on the ocean as cargo and as fuel, lubricants,and cleaning and maintenance materials for marine vessels and aircraft. Infrequently, large hazardousmaterials leaks and spills, especially of petroleum products, affect the marine environment and adverselyaffect marine life. Quantitative information is not available on the types and quantities of hazardousmaterials present on the sea ranges at a given time, or on their distribution among the various categoriesof vessels.Navy vessels within the VACAPES Study Area represent a small fraction of the commercial andrecreational boat traffic and, correspondingly, account for only a small fraction of the hazardous materialspresent. Navy training activities in open ocean areas involve the use of fuel, lubricants, explosives,propellants, batteries, oxidizers, and other hazardous substances.Hazardous waste is present within the VACAPES Study Area, both on surface vessels and in bottomsediments. Commercial, scientific, and military vessels generate small quantities of hazardous waste3-18 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz Wasteduring their operations. These materials typically are accumulated while at sea, and then offloaded andtransported to land disposal facilities when in port. Quantitative information is not available on the typesand quantities of hazardous waste present on the sea ranges at a given time, or on their distribution amongthe various categories of vessels.As a result of the past practice of ocean disposal of hazardous waste, isolated deposits of hazardous wastemay be found on the ocean floor. Although no such sites have been identified within the Navy’s searanges, the potential exists for one or more hazardous waste deposits to be present.3.2.3 Environmental ConsequencesNavy ships may not discharge overboard untreated used or excess hazardous material generated onboardthe ship within 200 nm of shore. Ships retain used and excess hazardous material on board for shoredisposal. Ships offload used hazardous material within five working days of arrival at a Navy port. The2005 Hazardous Materials Minimization, Hazardous Waste Reutilization and Disposal Guide, availableonline at http://www.cnrma.navy.mil/environmental/hazardous_waste.htm, provides points of contact anddetailed information regarding shipboard hazardous waste and material turn-in.The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) prohibitscertain discharges of oil, garbage, and other substances from vessels. The MARPOL Convention and itsannexes are implemented by national legislation, including the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships(APPS) (33 U.S.C. 1901 to 1915) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1321 to1322), commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). These statutes are further implemented andamplified by Department of the Navy (DoN) and Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Environmentaland Natural Resources Program Manual, which establishes Navy policy, guidance, and requirements forthe operation of Navy vessels. The vessels operating in the VACAPES Study Area would comply withthe discharge requirements, minimizing or eliminating potential impacts from discharges from ships.If a fuel spill occurred, the effects would be mitigated through compliance with standard spill-controlresponses and wildlife rescue procedures.Navy ships may not discharge overboard untreated used or excess hazardous material generated onboardthe ship within 200 nm of shore. Ships retain used and excess hazardous material on board for shoredisposal. Ships offload used hazardous material within five working days of arrival at a Navy port. The2005 Hazardous Materials Minimization, Hazardous Waste Reutilization and Disposal Guide, availableonline at http://www.cnrma.navy.mil/environmental/hazardous_waste.htm, provides points of contact anddetailed information regarding shipboard hazardous waste and material turn-in.The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) prohibitscertain discharges of oil, garbage, and other substances from vessels. The MARPOL Convention and itsAnnexes are implemented by national legislation, including the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33U.S.C. 1901 to 1915) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321 to 1322). Thesestatutes are further implemented and amplified by DoN and the Office of the Chief of Naval OperationsEnvironmental and Natural Resources Program Manual, which establishes Navy policy, guidance, andrequirements for the operation of Navy vessels. The vessels operating in theVACAPES Range Complexwould comply with the discharge requirements, minimizing or eliminating potential impacts fromdischarges from ships.Fuel dumping by aircraft rarely occurs. Navy aircrews are prohibited from dumping fuel below 6,000feet, except in an emergency situation. Above 6,000 feet, the fuel has enough time to completelyvaporize and dissipate and would, therefore, have a negligible effect on the water below. A studyperformed by the Air Force (USAF, 2002) indicated that 735 gallons of fuel released from an aircraft at5,000 feet altitude resulted in approximately 99 percent evaporation before the fuel hit the surface.3-19 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteAdditionally, jet fuel generally evaporates from the surface of water within 24 hours and, consequently,does not persist in the marine environment.The Navy has recently implemented the Water Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment(WRSEPA) Policy (29 August 2008) to ensure the long-term viability of our operational ranges whileprotecting human health and the environment (Chief of Naval Operations, 2008). The impact of trainingmaterials expended in the marine environment will be a focus of the WRSEPA Policy. Protectivemeasures will be considered and implemented if practicable to sustain range operations, maintainenvironmental compliance, and address unacceptable risks associated with munitions constituents andMEMCs. Protective measures are actions or best management practices designed and implemented toabate, prevent, minimize, stabilize, or eliminate the release or the threat of release of munitionsconstituents and MEMCs and risks to human health or the environment.Tables 2.2-4 and 2.2-5 list quantities of MEM used by Navy range operation and training activities duringexercises at the VACAPES Study Area for each alternative. Appendix D contains detailed weaponssystem descriptions. MEM and associated MEMC can leak or leach small amounts of toxic substancesinto the water as they degrade and decompose (see Table 3.2-2). These items decompose very slowly, sothe volume of MEM that decomposes within the training areas, and the amounts of toxic substances beingreleased to the environment, gradually increase over the period of military use. Concentrations of somesubstances in sediments surrounding the expended material may increase over time. Sedimentmovements in response to tidal surge and longshore currents, and sediment disturbance from ship trafficand other sources can disperse these contaminants so they will be present at very low concentrations.Thus, they are anticipated to have minimal effect on the environment (Environmental SciencesGroup, 2005).Bioaccumulation, or the building up of a substance in the systems of living organisms (and thus, a foodchain) due to ready solubility in living tissues, is not anticipated to be an issue when MEM or MEMC areintroduced into the water. Although aquatic food chains are capable of accumulating certainenvironmental contaminants to toxic concentrations, MEM and MEMC from Navy activities are notexpected to contribute to bioaccumulation in the Study Area. In general, at least three properties arerequired for a contaminant to bioaccumulate in an aquatic food chain: 1) a high octanol-water partitioncoefficient, 2) chemical and metabolic stability in water and in organisms in the food chain, and 3) a lowtoxicity to organisms in the chain so that the chain is not broken by loss of an intermediate species. Mostchemicals and metals introduced to the aquatic environment by environmental contamination (includingNavy MEM and MEMC) fail to meet these requirements (Clarkson, 1995). Further, due to the expansivearea of seaspace in the VACAPES OPAREA, tidal surge and longshore currents, and sedimentdisturbance from ship traffic and other sources, MEM and MEMC would not provide a measurablecontribution to bioaccumulation within the food chain of species found in the OPAREA. Consequently,the process of bioaccumulation or its effects are not further analyzed in this EIS/OEIS.This EIS/OEIS does not contain MEM associated with sonar training. The Navy is currently preparingthe Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) EIS/OEIS for the use of multiple sonar types in theeast coast and Gulf of Mexico OPAREAs of the United States. A summary of the AFAST EIS/OEIS isprovided in Section 3.19, Summary of Sonar Effects.3.2.3.1 No Action AlternativeNavy training operations conducted under the No Action Alternative use a variety of materials. Materialsrequired in the VACAPES Study Area are broadly classified as shipboard materials necessary for normaloperations and maintenance, such as fuel and paint and MEM. MEM includes both high explosives andnon-explosive practice munitions.3-20 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteSome MEM, including gun ammunition, bombs, missiles, targets, chaff, and flares, are expended on therange and not recovered. A small percentage of training items containing military explosives may fail tofunction properly, and, if not recovered, may remain on the range as UXO.TABLE 3.2-2MUNITIONS CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERNTraining Application/Munitions ConstituentsMunitions ElementPyrotechnicsTracersMunitions ConstituentSpotting chargesOxidizersDelay elementsPropellantsFusesDetonatorsPrimersOther explosives a/Lead oxideBarium chromatePotassium perchlorateLead chromateAmmonium perchloratePotassium perchlorateFulminate of mercuryPotassium perchlorateLead azide2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene (2-A-4,6-DNT)4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene (4-A-2,6-DNT)1,3-Dinitrobenzene (1,3-DNB)2,4-Dinitrotoluene (DNT)2,6-DNTHexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (Rapid-Detonating Explosive or RDX)Methyl-2,4,6-trinitrophenylnitramine (Tetryl)NitrobenzeneNitroglycerin2-Nitrotoluene3-Nitrotoluene4-NitrotolueneOctahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine ( Octogen or HMX)Perchlorate1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-TNB)2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT)Metals (such as aluminum, arsenic, lead, and mercury)a/ Source: U.S. Navy Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment Policy Implementation Manual, November2006The following paragraphs discuss the characteristics and the fate and transport of training items usedwithin the VACAPES Training Complex.BombsCharacteristics and Numbers of BombsTypically, bombing exercises (BOMBEX) at sea involve one or more aircraft bombing a target simulatinga hostile surface vessel. Bomb bodies are steel and the bomb fins are either steel or aluminum. Based onthe American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards specified for bomb construction, eachof the iron bomb bodies or steel fins may also contain small percentages (typically less than 1%) of any of3-21 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz Wastethe following: carbon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, copper, nickel, chromium, molybdenum,vanadium, columbium, or titanium. The aluminum fins, in addition to the aluminum, may also containzinc, magnesium, copper, chromium, manganese, silicon, or titanium (DoN, 2005d). Refer to Section 3.3,Water Resources, for effects on water quality.Practice bombs are also called bomb dummy units (BDU). They are bomb bodies filled with an nonexplosivematerial, such as concrete). A BDU mimics the weight, size, center of gravity, and ballistics ofa high-explosive bomb. Non-explosive practice mine shapes are similar in composition to BDUs, andconsist of pieces of concrete or steel cases formed in the shape of a mine and filled with concrete. Bothcould be used within the VACAPES Study Area. These practice munitions may contain spotting chargesand/or signal cartridges that produce a visual indication of impact.Several types of bombs would be used at the VACAPES Study Area sea range during the No ActionAlternative. Their approximate weights, lengths, and diameters are provided in Table 3.2-3.TABLE 3.2-3BOMBS DEPLOYED UNDER THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVEON THE VACAPES STUDY AREA SEA RANGEBomb TypeType~Weight(pounds)~Length(inches)~Diameter(inches)MK-82/GBU-30/38 High explosive 500 90 11MK-83/GBU-32 High explosive 1,000 119 14MK-84 High explosive 2,000 154 18MK-20 ClusterEach dispenses 247 bombletsMK-20 ClusterEach dispenses 247 bombletMK-76 (mine shape)BDU-45 (mine shape)BDU-33, GBU-12, JDAM,JSOW, MK-76, MK-82, MK-84High explosiveNon-explosive, practiceNon-explosive, practice(also used as mine shape)Non-explosive, practice(also used as mine shape)Non-explosive, practice1.32 perbomblet1.32 perbomblet6.5 26.5 225 25 4500 66 11SeeaboveSeeaboveSeeaboveSixty one percent (61%) of the bombs used in the No Action Alternative VACAPES Study Area exerciseswould be practice bombs without explosive warheads. Thirty nine percent (39%) of the 1,203 bombsdropped annually in No Action Alternative exercises at the VACAPES Study Area sea range wouldcontain high explosives. Bombs with high-explosive ordnance would be fused to detonate on contactwith the water, and it is estimated that 99% of them would explode within 5 feet of the ocean surface(DoN, 2005b). Propelled fragments would be produced by exploding bombs.Bombs Fate and TransportSmall fragments of detonated bombs would settle to the sea floor. Unrecovered ordnance would also sinkto the bottom where solid metal components would be corroded by seawater at slow rates. Over time,natural encrustation of exposed surfaces would occur, reducing the rate at which corrosion occurred.Rates of deterioration would vary, depending on the material and conditions in the immediate marine andbenthic environment. Because of the large ocean area of the VACAPES Study Area, expended ordnancescattered on the ocean floor would be widespread and would have a minimal impact on the benthic3-22 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz Wasteenvironment. Initial chemical by-product concentrations released during bomb detonation would disperserapidly in water and would be considered negligible (DoN, 2005b).Practice bombs entering the water would consist of materials like concrete, steel, and iron, and would notcontain the combustion chemicals found in the warheads of explosive bombs. These components areconsistent with the primary building blocks of artificial reef structures. The steel and iron, althoughdurable, would corrode over time, with no noticeable environmental impacts. The concrete is alsodurable and would offer a beneficial substrate for benthic organisms. After sinking to the bottom, thephysical structure of bombs would be incorporated into the marine environment by natural encrustationand/or sedimentation (DoN, 2006b).Refer to Section 3.3, Water Resources, for information regarding water quality.MissilesCharacteristics and Numbers of MissilesMissiles would be fired by aircraft, ships, and Naval Special Warfare (NSW) operatives at a variety ofairborne and surface targets on the VACAPES Study Area. In general, the single largest hazardousconstituent of missiles is solid propellant, which is primarily composed of rubber (polybutadiene) mixedwith ammonium perchlorate (for example, solid double-base propellant, aluminum and ammoniapropellant grain, and arcite propellant grain). Hazardous constituents are also used in igniters, explosivebolts, batteries (potassium hydroxide and lithium chloride), and warheads (for example, PBX-N highexplosivecomponents; PBXN-106 explosive; and PBX (AF)-108 explosive). Chromium or cadmiummay also be found in anti-corrosion compounds coating exterior missile surfaces.In the event of an ignition failure or other launch mishap, the rocket motor or portions of the unburnedpropellant may cause environmental effects. Experience with Hellfire missiles has shown that if therocket motor generates sufficient thrust to overcome the launcher hold-back, all of the rocket propellant isconsumed. In the rare cases where the rocket does not generate sufficient thrust to overcome the holdback(hang fire or miss fire), some propellant may remain unburned but the missile remains on thelauncher. Jettisoning the launcher is a possibility for hang fire or miss fire situations, but in most casesthe aircraft returns to base where the malfunctioning missile is handled by EOD personnel.Table 3.2-4 provides the approximate dimensions, weights, numbers, and types of missiles that would befired during operations in No Action Alternative missile exercises at the VACAPES Study Area searange. Approximately 27% of the 300 missiles that would be fired on the VACAPES Study Area searange each year would carry non-explosive practice warheads with no hazardous constituents.TABLE 3.2-4MISSILES FIRED UNDER THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVEAT THE VACAPES STUDY AREA SEA RANGEMissile Name Designation TypeSparrow AIM-7 Air-to-airSidewinder AIM-9 Air-to-airAMRAAM Slammer AIM-120 Air-to-air~LaunchWeight(pounds)~Length(feet)~Diameter(inches)HE &a/ 500 12 8NEPMHE &NEPMHE &NEPM190 9.4 5350 12 7ASRAAM AIM-132 Air-to-air NEPM 220 9 73-23 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteTABLE 3.2-4 (Continued)MISSILES FIRED UNDER THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVEAT THE VACAPES STUDY AREA SEA RANGEMissile Name Designation TypeMaverick AGM-65 Air-to-surfaceHE &NEPM~LaunchWeight(pounds)~Length(feet)~Diameter(inches)460-670 8.5 12Harpoon AGM-84 Air-to-surface NEPM 1,800 17 13.5High-speed AntiradiationMissile(HARM)AGM-88Air-to-surfaceHellfire AGM-114 Air-to-surfaceHE &NEPMHE &NEPM800 13.6 10100 5.6 7Sea Sparrow RIM-7 Surface-to-air NEPM 500 12 8Standard Missile (SM2) RIM-66C Surface-to-air NEPM 1,350 14.5 13.5Rolling Airframe RIM-116 Surface-to-air NEPM 162 9 5a/ HE = High explosive. NEPM = Non-explosive practice munitions.Missiles Fate and TransportNon-explosive practice missiles do not explode upon contact with the target or sea surface. The mainenvironmental effect would be the physical structure of the missile entering the water. Practice missilesdo not use rocket motors and, therefore, do not have potentially hazardous rocket fuel.Exploding warheads may be used in air-to-air missile exercises, but to avoid damaging the aerial target,the missile explodes at an offset to the target in the air, disintegrates, and falls into the ocean. Highexplosivemissiles used in air-to-surface exercises explode near the water surface (DoN, 2006a).The principal source of potential impacts to water and sediment quality would be unburned solidpropellant residue. Solid propellant fragments would sink to the ocean floor and undergo changes in thepresence of seawater. The concentration would decrease over time as the leaching rate decreased andfurther dilution occurred. The aluminum would remain in the propellant binder and eventually would beoxidized by seawater to aluminum oxide. The remaining binder material and aluminum oxide would poseno threat to the marine environment (DoN, 1996). Section 3.3, Water Resources, discusses missilepropellant in the marine environment.TargetsCharacteristics and Numbers of Targets and CountermeasuresAt-sea targets are usually remotely operated airborne, surface, or subsurface traveling units, most ofwhich are designed to be recovered for reuse. Aerial and surface targets would be deployed annually onthe VACAPES Study Area under operations in the No Action Alternative. Small concentrations of fueland ionic metals would be released during battery operation.A typical aerial target drone is powered by a jet fuel engine, generates radio frequency (RF) signals fortracking purposes, and is equipped with a parachute to allow recovery. Drones also contain oils,hydraulic fluid, batteries, and explosive cartridges as part of their operating systems. There are alsorecoverable, remotely controlled target boats and underwater targets designed to simulate submarines. Ifseverely damaged or displaced, targets may sink before they can be retrieved. Aerial targets on theVACAPES Study Area would include AST/ALQ/ESM pods, Banner drones, BQM-74E drones,3-24 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteCheyenne, Lear Jets, and Tactical Air-Launched Decoys (TALDs). The only expended target is theTALD. The TALD is a non-powered, air-launched, aerodynamic vehicle. It provides false imagery todefense acquisition systems by using chaff/electromagnetic and radar signature augmentation. It isapproximately 7.6 feet long, 10 inches high, and 10 inches wide. It weighs about 400 pounds and isconstructed of extruded aluminum.Surface targets would include Integrated Maritime Portable Acoustic Scoring and Simulator Systems(IMPASS), Improved Surface Tow Targets (ISTT), QST-35 Seaborne Powered Targets (SEPTAR), andexpendable marine markers (smoke floats). Expended surface targets commonly used in addition tomarine markers include cardboard boxes, 55-gallon steel drums, and a 10-foot-diameter red balloontethered by a sea anchor (also known as a “killer tomato”). Floating debris, such as Styrofoam, may belost from target boats.An estimated 360 expended targets would be used each year within the VACAPES Study Area for the NoAction Alternative.Target Fate and TransportMost target fragments would sink quickly in the sea. Expended material that sinks to the sea floor wouldgradually degrade, be overgrown by marine life, and/or be incorporated into the sediments. Floating nonhazardousexpended material may be lost from target boats and would either degrade over time or washashore as flotsam.Non-hazardous expended materials are defined as the parts of a device made of non-reactive material.Typical non-reactive material includes metals such as steel and aluminum; polymers, including nylon,rubber, vinyl, and plastics; glass; fiber; and concrete. While these items represent persistent seabed litter,their strong resistance to degradation and their chemical composition mean they do not chemicallycontaminate the surrounding environment by leaching heavy metals or organic compounds.An extensive study conducted in Canada (Environmental Sciences Group, 2005) at Canadian ForcesMaritime Experimental and Test Ranges near Nanoose, British Columbia, concluded that, in general, thedirect impact of debris accumulation on the sea floor appeared to be minimal and had no detectableeffects on wildlife or sediment quality.Marine Markers (Smoke Floats)Characteristics and Numbers of Marine MarkersMarine markers are pyrotechnic devices dropped on the water’s surface. They are used in trainingexercises to mark a surface position on the ocean. The chemical flame of a marine marker burns like aflare, but also produces smoke.The MK-25 marker consists of a cylindrical, outer tube about 18.5 inches long and 3 inches in diameter.It weighs 3.7 pounds and produces a yellow flame and white smoke for 10 to 20 minutes. It contains redphosphorus and a seawater-activated battery (The Ordnance Shop, 2007a). Seawater batteries usemagnesium anodes, seawater as the electrolyte, and oxygen dissolved in the seawater as oxidant.The MK-58 is composed of tin and contains two red phosphorus pyrotechnic candles and a seawateractivatedbattery. The MK-58 marine marker is about 22 inches long and 5 inches in diameter, weighs12.8 pounds, and produces a yellow flame and white smoke for between 40 and 60 minutes (TheOrdnance Shop, 2007b).Marine markers would be used during exercises within the VACAPES Study Area for the No ActionAlternative. Approximately 300 marine markers (smoke floats) would be expended annually during theNo Action Alternative.3-25 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISMarine Markers Fate and TransportChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteSmoke from marine markers would be rapidly diffused by air movement. The marker is not designed tobe recovered and would sink to the bottom and become encrusted and/or incorporated into the sediments.Unburned phosphorus contained in the marker would settle to the sea floor where it would react with thewater to produce phosphoric acid, until all phosphorus was consumed by the reaction. Combustion of redphosphorus would produce phosphorus oxides, which have a low toxicity to aquatic organisms. The redphosphorus is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the marine environment (DoN, 2006b). Referto Section 3.3, Water Resources, for details regarding water quality.Seawater-activated batteries would be expended during their normal service life and would not present asignificant impact to the environment (Environmental Sciences Group, 2005).Naval Gun AmmunitionNaval Gun Ammunition Characteristics and NumbersNaval gun fire within the VACAPES Study Area would use non-explosive and explosive 5-inch and 76-millimeter (mm) rounds, and non-explosive, practice, 2.75-inch rockets. An estimated 4,422 roundswould be fired annually during VACAPES Study Area exercises. More than 80 percent of the 5-inch and76-mm rounds training rounds and all of the rockets would be non-explosive and contain an iron shell andsand, iron grit, or cement filler. Rapid-detonating explosive (RDX) is used in explosive rounds.Unexploded shells and non-explosive practice munitions would not be recovered and would sink to theocean floor. Solid metal components (mainly iron) of UXO and non-explosive practice munitions wouldalso sink.Naval Gun Ammunition Fate and TransportHigh-explosive, 5-inch shells are typically fuzed to detonate within 3 feet of the water surface. Shellfragments rapidly decelerate through contact with the surrounding water and settle to the sea floor. Unrecoveredordnance also sinks to the bottom.Iron shells and fragments would be corroded by seawater at slow rates, with comparably slow releaserates. Over time, natural encrustation of exposed surfaces would occur, reducing the rate at whichcorrosion occurred. Rates of deterioration would vary, depending on the material and conditions in theimmediate marine and benthic environment. However, the release of contaminants from UXO, nonexplosivepractice munitions, and fragments would not result in measurable degradation of marine waterquality. Refer to Section 3.3, Water Resources for details regarding water quality.The RDX material of UXO would not typically be exposed to the marine environment. Should the RDXbe exposed on the ocean floor, it would break down within a few hours (DoN, 2001). Over time, theRDX residue would be covered by ocean sediments or diluted by ocean water.Small-Arms and Close-In Weapons System AmmunitionCharacteristics and Numbers of Small-Arms and Close-In Weapons System AmmunitionThe cartridges used in .50-caliber and 7.62-mm small arms often contain lead cores. The 20-mm and25-mm cannon shells used in Small Arms and Close-In Weapons Systems (CIWS) training are primarilysteel; 20 mm projectiles used in CIWS training are typically inert tungsten. Depleted Uranium, is beingphased out of the inventory, and is not used in training events. A total of 808,160 small-arms rounds and201,700 cannon shells would be fired annually in the No Action Alternative.3-26 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteAn estimated 540 non-explosive, practice, 40-mm grenades would be used each year. A grenade is aboutthe same size and shape as a chicken egg, contains high explosives in an inert dye in a metal shell, anduses a variety of fuzes.Small-Arms and Close-In Weapons System Ammunition Fate and TransportExpended .50-caliber and 7.62-mm bullets may release small amounts of iron, aluminum, copper, andtungsten into sediments and the overlying water column as bullets corrode. All of these are elements thatexist naturally in the environment. Their presence in water is mainly the result of erosion of soils androcks. Increased concentrations of metals in sediments would be restricted to a small zone around thebullet, and releases to the overlying water column would be quickly diluted (DoN, 2005c). Refer toSection 3.3, Water Resources, for details regarding water quality.ChaffCharacteristics and Numbers of ChaffRadio frequency chaff (chaff) is an electronic countermeasure designed to reflect radar waves and obscureaircraft, ships, and other equipment from radar-tracking sources. Chaff is non-hazardous and consists ofaluminum-coated glass fibers (about 60% silica and 40% aluminum by weight) ranging in lengths from0.3 to 3 inches with a diameter of about 40 micrometers. Chaff is released or dispensed from militaryvehicles in cartridges or projectiles that contain millions of chaff fibers.For each chaff cartridge used, a plastic end-cap and Plexiglas piston is released into the environment inaddition to the chaff fibers. The end-cap and piston are both round and are 1.3 inches in diameter and0.13 inches thick (Spargo, 2007).Chaff would be used during chaff exercises throughout the VACAPES Study Area. Under the No ActionAlternative, it is estimated that 1,821 chaff exercises would be held per year, releasing about18,198 rounds (150-gram cartridges) of chaff in the VACAPES Study Area.Chaff Fate and TransportWhen deployed, a diffuse cloud of fibers undetectable to the human eye is formed. Chaff is a very lightmaterial that can remain suspended in air anywhere from 10 minutes to 10 hours. It can travelconsiderable distances from its release point, depending on prevailing atmospheric conditions (Arfsten etal. 2002).Based on the dispersion characteristics of chaff, large areas of open water within the VACAPES StudyArea would be exposed to chaff, but the chaff concentrations would be low. For example, Hullar et al.(1999) calculated that a 4.97-mile by 7.46-mile area (37.1 square miles or 28 square nautical miles) wouldbe affected by deployment of a single cartridge containing 150 grams of chaff. The resulting chaffconcentration would be about 5.4 grams per square nautical mile. This corresponds to fewer than179,000 fibers per square nautical mile or fewer than 0.005 fibers per square foot, assuming that eachcanister contains five million fibers.The fine, neutrally buoyant chaff streamers act like particulates in the water, temporarily increasing theturbidity of the ocean’s surface. However, they are quickly dispersed and turbidity readings return tonormal.The end-caps and pistons would sink; however, some may remain at or near the surface if it were to falldirectly on a dense Sargassum mat. The expended material could also be transported long distancesbefore becoming incorporated into the bottom sediments.3-27 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISFlaresChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteCharacteristics and Numbers of FlaresInfrared defensive flares are used at the VACAPES Study Area to attract heat-seeking missiles. Infrareddefensive flares are also called self-protection flares or decoy flares. They consist of an aluminum caseapproximately 8 inches long with a 1.0- to 1.5-inch diameter.The type of metal burned in the flare determines the color of the flame; most flares burn magnesium toproduce a white flame. Traces of orange indicate the burning of the aluminum casing. Solid flare andpyrotechnic residues may contain, depending on their purpose and color, aluminum, magnesium, zinc,strontium, barium, boron, chromium, cadmium, and nickel, as well as perchlorates. Hazardousconstituents in pyrotechnic residues are typically present in small amounts or low concentrations, and arebound in relatively insoluble compounds. As inert, incombustible solids with low concentrations ofleachable metals, these materials typically do not meet the RCRA criteria for characteristic hazardouswaste. The perchlorate compounds present in the residues are persistent and do not break down readilyinto other compounds in the environment. Because they are relatively soluble, they disperse quickly inthe water (DoN, 2008).Under normal operations, the only defensive flare waste material that would enter the water would be ashand a small, round, plastic end-cap about 1.4 inches in diameter. In rare instances, an unburned, dud flarecould enter the water. While no data specifying absolute flare reliability rates are available, the dud rateis estimated at less than 1 percent, based on studies conducted by the Air Force (USAF, 1997).Decoy flares are used during air combat maneuver training, chaff exercises, electronic combat operations,and firing exercises (IMPASS). Each year, 465 flares would be used under the No Action Alternative.Flares Fate and TransportBecause flares are designed to burn completely, only a small amount of waste falls to the sea surface.Similar to the chaff cartridge end-caps and pistons discussed above, plastic flare end-caps would bereleased into the marine environment where they would persist for long periods. Although the end-capswould typically sink, some could remain at or near the surface if they fell directly on a dense Sargassummat. The expended material could also be transported long distances before becoming incorporated intothe bottom sediments.Laboratory leaching tests of flare pellets and residual ash using synthetic seawater found barium in thepellet tests, while boron and chromium were found in the ash tests. The pH of the test water was raised inboth tests. Ash from flares is dispersed over the water surface and then settles out. Chemical leachingoccurs throughout the settling period through the water column, and any leachates after the particles reachthe bottom are dispersed by currents. Although the compounds in the residues are persistent (that is, theydo not break down readily into other compounds), they are relatively soluble and should disperse quickly(DoN, 2008). Refer to Section 3.3, Water Resources for details regarding water quality.Dud flares would sink to the bottom and slowly degrade. Based on studies conducted by the Air Force,flare dud degradation products in saltwater would include magnesium and barium (USAF, 1997).Incidental flare duds falling into marine environments would not generate adverse effects because of thesmall amount of chemicals released (USAF, 1997), the small number of dud flares, and the large dilutioncapacity of the receiving waters of the VACAPES Study Area.3-28 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISUnderwater DetonationsChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteCharacteristics and Numbers of Underwater DetonationsMost underwater detonations during VACAPES Study Area operations would be associated with mineneutralization exercises. Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) detachments place explosive charges nextto or on non-explosive practice mines. Charges used by EOD divers consist of 20-lb explosives. Thesecharge sizes reflect the size of charges EOD divers use to detonate mines in combat or real-worldconditions.The combustion products from the detonation of high explosives are commonly found in seawater andinclude carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), hydrogen gas (H 2 ), water (H 2 O), nitrogen gas (N 2 ),and ammonia (NH 3 ). The primary contaminants that would be released from explosives used in minewarfare training are nitroaromatic compounds such as TNT, RDX, and HMX (URS et al. 2000). Refer toSection 3.3, Water Resources, for details regarding water quality.Under the No Action Alternative, 12 20-lb charges would be used per year.Underwater Detonations Fate and TransportInitial concentrations of explosion by-products are not expected to be hazardous to marine life(DoN, 2001) and would not accumulate in the training area because exercises are spread out over timeand chemicals rapidly disperse in the ocean. Therefore, no adverse effects from chemical by-productswould be expected. Refer to Section 3.3, Water Resources, for details regarding water quality.3.2.3.2 Alternative 1Under Alternative 1, VACAPES Study Area training operations would increase from current levels insupport of the Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP). While the number of training operations wouldincrease, no new training activities, such as weapons firing or target deployment, would be introduced.Under Alternative 1, as compared to the No Action Alternative, MEM use of:High-explosive bombs would remain the same;Non-explosive practice bombs would increase 4 percent;Air-to-surface high-explosive missiles would increase 39 percent;Air-to-air high-explosive missiles would increase 12 percent;Non-explosive practice missiles would increase 10 percent;Expended targets would increase 10 percent;Marine markers (smoke floats) would increase 65 percent;High-explosive ammunition would remain the same;Non-explosive practice naval gun ammunition would increase by 8 percent;Small-arms ammunition would increase 32 percent;CIWS ammunition would increase 11 percent;Grenades would increase 11 percent;Chaff rounds would increase 12 percent;Defensive/decoy flares would increase 77 percent; and20-lb charges would increase 100 percent.Amounts of MEM would increase in rough proportion to the increases in training operations shown inTables 2.2-4 and 2.2-5. A summary of ordnance use and increase by training area is provided in Table2.2-6.Vessels, aircraft, and other military assets employed in training operations would carry and use hazardousmaterials for routine operation and maintenance. Increases in hazardous materials transport, storage, anduse to support increased training operations under Alternative 1 would be managed in compliance with3-29 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz Wasteapplicable laws and regulations. No new types of hazardous materials would be required, and existinghazardous materials storage and handling facilities, equipment, supplies, and procedures would continueto provide for adequate management of these materials. No significant harm or effect on the environmentis anticipated.The amounts of hazardous waste generated by normal vessel and aircraft operations and maintenanceduring training under Alternative 1 would be about the same as those generated under the No ActionAlternative. The amounts of hazardous waste generated by training operations under Alternative 1 wouldbe incrementally greater than those under the No Action Alternative. All hazardous waste would continueto be managed in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. No changes in hazardous wastemanagement are anticipated for operating Navy assets under Alternative 1.Proposed Increases in Training OperationsAmounts of MEM would increase in rough proportion to the changes in training operations. Navyvessels, aircraft, and other military assets engaged in these operations would use minor quantities ofhazardous materials and generate minor quantities of used hazardous materials during routine shipoperations. These materials would be managed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.Hazardous materials inventories would be replenished, and used hazardous materials would be offloadedfor appropriate treatment and/or disposal while the vessels were in port.Expand Warfare Missions: Conduct Maritime Security Surface Strike Group TrainingMaritime Security (MS) Surface Strike Group (SSG) training under Alternative 1 would not bemeasurably different from training which would occur within the VACAPES Study Area under the NoAction Alternative. Changes primarily would consist of repackaging cruiser/destroyer training operationssuch that a three-ship SSG would practice operating as an autonomous entity. MS SSG training does notinvolve the expenditure of ordnance. None of the MS SSG training would have a substantial effect onMEM, hazardous materials use, or hazardous waste generation under Alternative 1.Accommodate Mission Requirements Associated with Force Structure ChangesConduct MH-60R and MH-60S Helicopter Training. See Section 1.7, Related EnvironmentalDocuments, for a summary of the 2002 environmental assessment prepared for the proposed homebasingand operations of new MH-60R/S helicopters and MH-60R helicopters on the east coast of the UnitedStates (DoN, 2002). In relation to the VACAPES Study Area, the finding of no significant impact(FONSI) identified NS Norfolk as the homebase for all or most of the MH-60R/S helicopters. MH-60R/Straining would not have a substantial effect on hazardous materials use or hazardous waste generationunder Alternative 1.Organic Mine Countermeasures. Navy vessels, aircraft, and other military assets engaged in theseoperations would use minor quantities of hazardous materials and generate minor quantities of usedhazardous materials during routine operations. These materials would be managed in accordance withapplicable laws and regulations. Although underwater detonations would increase, no adverse effectsfrom chemical by-products would be expected.3.2.3.3 Alternative 2VACAPES Study Area training operations involving hazardous materials would increase from currentlevels in support of the FRTP. While the number of training operations would increase, no new trainingactivities, such as weapons firing or target deployment, would be introduced. MEM use under Alternative2 (Preferred Alternative) would be the same as Alternative 1 except that the use of high-explosive bombswould decrease by 96 percent below the No Action Alternative level.3-30 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteAmounts of MEM would increase and decrease in rough proportion to the increases and decreases intraining operations shown in Tables 2.2-4 and 2.2-5. A summary of ordnance use by training area isprovided in Table 2.2-6.Vessels, aircraft, and other military assets employed in training operations would carry and use hazardousmaterials for routine operation and maintenance. Increases in hazardous materials transport, storage, anduse to support increased training operations under Alternative 2 would be managed in compliance withapplicable laws and regulations. No new types of hazardous materials would be required. Existinghazardous materials storage and handling facilities, equipment, supplies, and procedures would continueto provide for adequate management of these materials. No releases of hazardous materials to theenvironment and no unplanned exposures of personnel to hazardous materials are anticipated under thisalternative.The amounts of hazardous waste generated by normal vessel and aircraft operation and maintenanceduring training under Alternative 2 would be about the same as those generated under the No ActionAlternative. The amounts of hazardous waste generated by training operations under Alternative 2 wouldbe incrementally greater than those under the No Action Alternative. All hazardous waste would continueto be managed in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. No changes in hazardous materialsmanagement practices are anticipated under Alternative 2.3.2.3.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThe analysis presented above indicates that Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in unavoidablesignificant adverse effects.3.2.3.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)Hazardous material, waste, and MEM used and generated during VACAPES Study Area operationswould be managed in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and DoD serviceguidelines. Any spills or mishaps would be handled pursuant to all applicable federal and state laws andDoD regulations.Military munitions are not considered hazardous waste when used for their intended purposes, whichinclude training of military personnel and research and development activities. This includes almost allmissiles, munitions, and targets used at the VACAPES Study Area. A review of the use of munitions andtargets was conducted and their hazardous constituents’ disposition was analyzed. The components thatcontain hazardous constituents include propellants, batteries, flares, telemetry, igniters, jet fuel, dieselfuel, hydraulic fluid, and explosive warheads.Non-hazardous expended material is defined as all parts of a device made of nonreactive materials,including parts made of metals such as steel or aluminum; polymers such as nylon, rubber, vinyl, andplastics; glass; fiber; and concrete. While these items represent persistent seabed litter, their strongresistance to degradation and their chemical composition mean that they do not chemically contaminatethe surrounding environment by leaching heavy metals or organic compounds. Expended material thatsinks to the sea floor would gradually degrade, be overgrown by marine life, and/or be incorporated intothe sediments. Floating non-hazardous expended material may be lost from target boats and would eitherdegrade over time or wash ashore as flotsam.MEM would introduce small amounts of potentially hazardous chemicals into the marine environment.The water quality analysis of all current and proposed operations indicates that concentrations ofconstituents of concern associated with material expended in the VACAPES Range Complex under allthree alternatives would be well below water quality criteria established to protect aquatic life (seeSection 3.3, Water Resources).3-31 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteThe combustion products from the detonation of high explosives are commonly found in seawater andinclude carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), hydrogen gas (H 2 ), water (H 2 O), nitrogen gas (N 2 ),and ammonia (NH 3 ). The primary contaminant that would be released from explosives used in minewarfare training would include nitroaromatic compounds such as TNT, RDX, and HMX (URS etal. 2000). Initial concentrations of explosion by-products resulting from training operations associatedwith any of the alternatives would not be hazardous to marine life (DoN, 2001) and would not accumulatein the area because exercises would be spread out over time and the chemicals would rapidly disperse inthe ocean. Therefore, no adverse effects from chemical by-products would be expected.As summarized in Table 3.2-5, less than significant impacts from hazardous materials or wastemanagement are anticipated under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2 (PreferredAlternative). Discarded training materials would be deposited in offshore areas, become buried in the seafloor sediments, and have no measurable environmental effects. The volume of expended training itemswould increase in Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) in correlation to changes inoperations.TABLE 3.2-5SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTSOF THE ALTERNATIVES IN THE VACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREASummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative and StressorNo Action AlternativeMilitary expendedmaterials (MEM)Underwater detonationsand high-explosiveordnanceNon-explosive practicemunitionsMine warfaredeployment/recoveryNEPA(U.S. Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the oceanfloor, Sargassum mats, and beaches.Negligible effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the oceanfloor, Sargassum mats, and beaches.Negligible effects.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the oceanfloor and Sargassum mats.Negligible effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the oceanfloor and Sargassum mats.Negligible effects.Impact conclusion Less than significant impact. Less than significant harm.Alternative 1MEMUnderwater detonationsand high-explosiveordnanceNon-explosive practicemunitionsMine warfaredeployment/recoveryLong-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the oceanfloor, Sargassum mats, and beaches.Slight increase compared to No Action.Negligible effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the oceanfloor, Sargassum mats, and beaches.Slight increase compared to No Action.Negligible effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the oceanfloor and Sargassum mats. Slightincrease compared to No Action.Negligible effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the oceanfloor and Sargassum mats. Slightincrease compared to No Action.Negligible effects.Impact conclusion Less than significant impact. Less than significant harm.3-32 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.2 – Haz Materials/Haz WasteTABLE 3.2-5SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTSOF THE ALTERNATIVES IN THE VACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREA(Continued)Summary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative and StressorNEPA(U.S. Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)MEMUnderwater detonationsand high-explosiveordnanceNon-explosive practicemunitionsMine warfaredeployment/recoveryLong-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the oceanfloor, Sargassum mats, and beaches.Slight increase compared to No Action.Negligible effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the oceanfloor, Sargassum mats, and beaches.Slight increase compared to No Action.Negligible effects.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the oceanfloor and Sargassum mats. Slightincrease compared to No Action.Negligible effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the oceanfloor and Sargassum mats. Slightincrease compared to No Action.Negligible effects.Impact conclusion Less than significant impact. Less than significant harm.3-33 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.3 WATER RESOURCESChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water Resources3.3.1 Introduction and MethodsWater resources on land include surface and subsurface water bodies. Since land ranges in theVACAPES Range Complex are not being evaluated as part of this EIS/OEIS, water resources such aslakes, ponds, rivers, streams, groundwater, and aquifers are not discussed unless they specifically pertainto an activity in the proposed action or are linked to the marine environment. The marine environmentrefers to offshore, high salinity waters, and is further defined by prevailing currents, harbor flushinghydraulics, and tidal variations.Water quality describes the chemical and physical composition of water as affected by natural conditionsand human activities. For the purposes of this analysis, water quality is evaluated with respect to possiblerelease of pollutants from those aircraft and vessels using the VACAPES Range Complex.After the existing water quality conditions are described, the potential future water quality impacts of theproject alternatives are compared to the existing water quality conditions to identify the differences inenvironmental impacts that might be expected if one of the project alternatives were selected. In otherwords, environmental impacts are currently taking place from current natural and human activities,including those of the Navy.3.3.1.1 Assessment Methods and Data UsedEach alternative analyzed in this EIS/OEIS includes several warfare areas (e.g., Mine Warfare, AirWarfare, etc.) and most warfare areas include multiple types of training operations (e.g., MineNeutralization, Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise, etc.). Likewise, several activities (e.g., vessel maneuver,target deployment, weapons firing, etc.) are accomplished under each operation. Most of the specificactivities accomplished under a given operation are not unique to that operation. For example, many ofthe operations included in the alternatives involve Navy vessel maneuvers and aircraft overflights.Accordingly, the analysis for water resources is organized by specific activity rather than warfare area oroperations.For the purposes of this analysis, water quality is evaluated with respect to possible release of expendedmaterials from aircraft and surface and subsurface vessels. To address potential impacts, the approach toanalysis includes characterizing the yearly test and training operations that may contribute expendedmaterials to the VACAPES Range Complex ocean environment. These include missile flights; targetexpenditures; ship, boat, and aircraft operations; weapons firing; and expended materials from varioustraining operations. This section of the EIS/OEIS reviews the water resources and impacts to waterquality associated with training in the VACAPES Range Complex. Potential impacts to otherenvironmental resources are addressed in the respective sections of this chapter as appropriate. A fulldiscussion of hazardous materials and hazardous waste (primarily military expended materials) ispresented in Section 3.2.EIS Study AreaIn this EIS/OEIS, the water resources/water quality Study Area for the VACAPES Range Complexincludes the Navy’s sea ranges, lower Chesapeake Bay, and adjacent waters (waters from the shorelineseaward).The VACAPES OPAREA includes offshore surface and subsurface extending southward generally fromthe Delaware-Maryland border along the coast of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to the latitudeof approximately Cape Fear, North Carolina, for an estimated distance of 270 miles and seaward (east) to3 nm off the coast, for a distance of approximately 155 nm (see Figure 1.5-1).3-34 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISData SourcesChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesState and federal regulations, as well as each state’s water resource/water quality programs werereviewed. Available reference materials, including the Marine Resource Assessment for the VACAPESStudy Area, as well as prior EAs and EISs, were reviewed and are cited as appropriate.Significance Criteria and Impact ThresholdsNumerous federal, state, and local regulations govern the protection of water resources; these regulationsare summarized in Appendix K. The primary objective of these regulations is to protect public health andthe environment, as well as biological resources.3.3.1.2 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsAspects of the proposed actions likely to act as stressors to water resources were identified by conductingan analysis of the warfare areas, operations, and specific activities included in the alternatives.Table 3.3-1 summarizes this analysis and shows the primary stressors associated with each operation (seeAppendix D for detailed descriptions of operations). After the primary stressors were identified, trainingitems associated with warfare areas and operations were identified.TABLE 3.3-1POTENTIAL STRESSORS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER QUALITYWarfare Area and OperationTraining AreasMine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsMine Warfare (MIW)Mine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM) Lower Chesapeake Bay Mine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM)W-50A/CW-386, W-72 Mine Neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface)(at sea)W-386 (Air-K)W-72A (Air-3B)W-72A/B Missile Exercise (MISSILEX)W-386 (Air-K) W-72A (Air-to-Surface)Gunnery Exercise (GUNEX)W-386 (Air-K), W-72A,(Air-to-Surface)W-72A (Air-1A), W-50CGUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) - Boat W-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) - Ship W-386, W-72 Laser TargetingW-386 (Air-K)3-35 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesTABLE 3.3-1POTENTIAL STRESSORS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER QUALITY (Continued)Warfare Area and OperationTraining AreasMine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsVisit, Board, Search, and Seizure/MaritimeInterception Operations (VBSS/MIO)-ShipVBSS/MIO- HeloAir Warfare (AW)Air Combat Maneuver (ACM)VACAPES OPAREAVACAPES OPAREAW-72A(Air-2A/B, 3A/B)GUNEX (Air-to-Air) W-72A MISSILEX (Air-to-Air)W-386 (Air D, G, H, K)W-72AGUNEX (Surface-to-Air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (Surface-to-Air)W-386(Air D, G, H, K) Air Intercept Control (AIC) W-386, W-72Detect to Engage (DTE) W-386, W-72Strike Warfare (STW)HARM Missile ExerciseAmphibious Warfare (AMW)FIREX with Integrated Maritime PortableAcoustic Scoring and Simulator System(IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)Chaff Exercise - AircraftW-386(Air E, F, I, and J)W-386 (7C/D, 8C/D),W-72 (1C1/2) (PreferredAreas), W-386 (5C/D)(Secondary Areas )W-386, W-386 (Air-K),and W-72 Chaff Exercise - Ship W-386 and W-72 Flare Exercise - AircraftW-386, W-386 (Air-K),and W-723-36 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesTABLE 3.3-1POTENTIAL STRESSORS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER QUALITY (Continued)Warfare Area and OperationTraining AreasMine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsElectronic Combat (EC) Operations -AircraftEC Operations- shipTest and EvaluationShipboard Electronic Systems EvaluationFacility (SESEF) UtilizationW-386 (Air-K)VACAPES OPAREAVACAPES OPAREATable 3.3-2 identifies the training item source associated with the expended materials for each operationand the location relative to the shoreline where the operation would occur.TABLE 3.3-2EXPENDABLE OR HAZARDOUS TRAINING ITEM ASSOCIATED WITH THE VACAPESRANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONSWarfare Area and Operation Training Area Proximity Expended Training ItemMine CountermeasuresExercise (MCM)Mine NeutralizationBombing Exercise (BOMBEX)(Air-to-Surface)Missile Exercise (MISSILEX)(Air-to-Surface)3-12 nm MK-103 (Alternative 2 only) 0.002-lb Net Explosive Weight (NEW)3-12 nm 20-lb NEW charges AMNS (3.24 -lb NEW) MK-82/GBU-30/38 (500-lb HighExplosive (HE) MK-83/GBU-32 (1,000-lb HE MK-84 (2,000-lb HE) MK-20 (cluster bomb HE)Outside 12 nm MK-20 non-explosive practicemunitions (NEPM) MK-76 (NEPM) BDU-45 (NEPM) BDU-33, GBU-12, JDAM, JSOW,MK-76, MK-82, MK-84 (all NEPM) AGM-114 Hellfire (HE) AGM-65 E/F (Maverick HE)Outside 12 nm 75% AGM-88 (HARM)3-12 nm 25% AGM-65 LSR (Maverick) AGM-84 (Harpoon)3-37 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesTABLE 3.3-2EXPENDABLE OR HAZARDOUS TRAINING ITEM ASSOCIATED WITH THE VACAPESRANGE COMPLEX OPERATIONS (Continued)Warfare Area and Operation Training Area Proximity Expended Training ItemGunnery Exercise (GUNEX)(Air-to-Surface)GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface)(Boat)GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface)(Ship)Outside 12 nm 75%3-12 nm 25%Inside 3 nm 10%3-12 nm 90%Outside 12 nm .50-caliber projectile 2.75-inch rockets M-240 (7.62 mm projectile) 20-mm projectile (NEPM) .50-caliber projectile 7.62-mm projectile 40-mm grenades 5-inch projectile 7- mm projectile .50-caliber projectile 25-mm projectileGUNEX (Air-to-Air) Outside 12 nm 20-mm projectileMISSILEX (Air-to-Air)Outside 12 nm AIM-7 (HE and NEPM) AIM-9 (HE and NEPM) AIM-120 (HE and NEPM) AIM-132GUNEX (Surface-to-Air)Outside 12 nm 5-inch projectile 76-mm projectile 20-mm projectileMISSILEX (Surface-to-Air)Outside 12 nm NATO Sea Sparrow Evolved NATO Sea Sparrow Rolling Airframe Missile SM-2HARM Missile Exercise Outside 12 nm AGM-88 (HARM)Firing Exercise (FIREX) with 5-inch projectile (NEPM and 8-lbIntegrated Maritime PortableNEW HE)Outside 12 nmAcoustic Scoring andSimulator System (IMPASS) RR-144A/ALChaff ExerciseOutside 12 nm MK-214 MK-216Flare Exercise Outside 12 nm Defensive Flares3.3.2 Affected EnvironmentThe affected environment for purposes of water quality includes the VACAPES Study Area and lowerChesapeake Bay (shoreline from NS Norfolk north 25 nm) and referred to as the VACAPES Study Area.As mentioned in Chapters 1 and 2, the VACAPES Range Complex includes land areas, but these areasare not analyzed in this EIS/OEIS. The area of the VACAPES Range Complex assessed in this EIS/OEISis almost entirely offshore training sea space, undersea space, and special use airspace. For water qualitypurposes, the majority of area assessed is the 27,661 nm 2 of sea space, which begins 3 nm from shorewhere state waters end; however, the nearshore environment is also included in this analysis.3-38 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesThe physical oceanography of the Study Area can be characterized in terms of its bathymetry, or bottomtopography, and its circulation. Sediment transport and deposition and bottom composition also areelements of physical oceanography. Bathymetry and bottom composition are addressed in Section 3.1,Bathymetry and Sediments. Water characteristics, sediment transport, deposition and circulation arediscussed below, along with marine water quality. Fate and transport of expended materials in the marineenvironment is discussed in Section 3.2.3.3.2.1 Marine Water QualityThe VACAPES Study Area is located in the coastal and offshore waters of the western North Atlanticocean adjacent to the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina and extends seawardinto waters more than 4,000 m deep (see Figures 1.1-1 and 2.1-1). Cape Hatteras, North Carolina isgenerally considered to be a transition zone between the warm, tropical waters found to the south and thecool, temperate waters to the north. Cape Hatteras separates the oceanic provinces of the South-AtlanticBight (SAB) from those of the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB). The SAB encompasses the area from theFlorida Straights to Cape Hatteras, while the MAB extends from Cape Hatteras to the southwestern flankof Georges Bank (DoN, 2001a; DoN, 2008). The majority of the VACAPES Study Area is located in theMAB, but the southernmost section of the OPAREA is located in the northernmost limit of the SABprovince. Thus, both oceanic provinces influence the physical environment of the OPAREA.Water quality in the marine environment is determined by a complex set of interactions between chemicaland physical processes operating continuously in the ocean system. This dynamic equilibrium isexpressed by a variety of indicators, including temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and nutrient levels.Water pollutants alter the basic chemistry of sea water in various ways. The following discussioncharacterizes in general terms the major determinants of marine water quality in the VACAPES StudyArea.CurrentsPrevailing winds and centripetal force cause surface waters to move in a gyre or circular fashion in oceanbasins. In the North Atlantic Ocean, this gyre system is composed of the Gulf Stream, North Atlantic,Canary, and Equatorial Currents. Additional surface water masses found in the VACAPES Study Areaare Chesapeake Bay plume water, Delaware Bay plume water, and mid-Atlantic shelf water (or VirginiaCoastal Water) (DoN, 2008).The Gulf Stream exerts a considerable influence on the oceanographic conditions in the VACAPES StudyArea. In general, the Gulf Stream flows roughly parallel to the coastline from the Florida Straits to CapeHatteras, where it is deflected from the North American continent and flows northeastward past the GrandBanks (Figure 3.3-1). After the Gulf Stream separates from the east coast in North Carolina, the currentpasses through the southeastern portion of the VACAPES Study Area (DoN, 2008). In this area, the GulfStream is approximately 27 nm wide and 3,281 feet deep. Surface velocity ranges from two to five knotsand temperature from 77 to 82 o F.Relatively fresh or brackish water from the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays flows out of these estuaries inthe form of plume water. The Coriolis force causes this less dense (because it is lower in salinity) waterto turn south, resulting in southward-flowing, coastally trapped currents. An increase in river flow andebbing tides force more water out of the respective bays; thus, the seaward front of the plume extendsacross the shelf. During the summer months predominant southwesterly winds cause a seawardexpansion of the plume over the continental shelf, creating a well-stratified, two-layer system. The warmsurface waters are replaced by deeper, more saline, nutrient-rich water (DoN, 2008).3-39 March 2009

76°W75°W74°W73°W72°W39°ND. C.ANNAPOLISMilfordDELAWAREDelewareBayDelawareBayLewesRehoboth BeachWildwoodAtlantic CityOPAREA39°NSeafordCambridgeOcean CityMARYLANDVIRGINIAChesapeakeBayVACAPES OPAREACape Charles37°NNEWPORT NEWSNS NorfolkNAB Little Creek37°NNORFOLKPORTSMOUTHVIRGINIABEACHNAS OceanaNORTH CAROLINA36°N38°N38°NAlbemarle SoundNags Head36°NVACAPES OPAREAPamlico SoundCapeHatteras35°N3 nm State Limit12 nm Territorial Limit35°NCherry PointOPAREAATLANTIC OCEAN34°N34°N76°W75°W74°W73°W72°WPAMDWVVANCSCDENJLegendVACAPES OPAREASurface Grid3 nm State Limit12 nm Territorial LimitShelf Break (180m Isobath)Longshore CurrentVariable Shelf CurrentsMean Gulf Stream AxisStandard Deviation of Gulf Stream AxisFigure 3.3-1Mean Position ofthe Gulf Stream0 12.5 25 50 75 100Source data: NOAA (1999)Nautical MilesVACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-40

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISTemperature and SalinityChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesTemperature stratification varies greatly between summer and winter in the waters of the VACAPESStudy Area. The water column is vertically well-mixed, with water temperatures of 14C (57F) at thesurface and 11C (52F) at depth in the winter; the water column is vertically stratified, with 25C(77F) water near the surface and 10C (50F) water at depths greater than 656 feet during the summer(Paquette et al., 1995).The marine environment has a high buffering capacity (i.e., the pH of seawater is relatively stable) due tothe presence of dissolved elements, particularly carbon and hydrogen. Most of the carbon in the sea ispresent as dissolved inorganic carbon that originates from the complex equilibrium reaction of dissolvedcarbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and water. This CO 2 -carbonate equilibrium system is the major buffering system inseawater, maintaining a pH between 7.5 and 8.5.The major chemical parameters of marine water quality include pH, dissolved oxygen, and nutrientconcentrations. The major ions present in seawater are sodium, chloride, potassium, calcium,magnesium, and sulfate.Salinity ranges from 28 to 36 parts per thousand (ppt) over the continental shelf. Lower salinities arefound near the coast and the highest salinities found near the continental shelf break, with highestsalinities during the winter and lowest in the spring. The intrusion of saltier water (greater than 35 ppt)from the continental slope waters and freshwater input from coastal sources causes the variability in thisarea. A fairly uniform salinity range (32 to 36 ppt) is maintained throughout the year in continental slopewaters in the VACAPES Study Area, with pockets of high-salinity water (38 ppt) near the Gulf Stream inthe fall (DoN, 2008).Sediment Transport and DepositionThe continental shelf and slope of the MAB are covered with unconsolidated terrigenous sediments,primarily sand, silt, clay, and some gravel. A small amount of carbonate is found in the bottom sedimentsnorth of Cape Hatteras, although sediments south of the Cape contain as much as 50 percent. Thecontinental shelf of the MAB is primarily covered by medium-grained sands composed primarily ofquartzite and feldspar with less than five percent calcium carbonate while the continental shelf off CapeHatteras is covered by a mixture of sand, silt, and clay (DoN, 2008).Rivers draining eastern North America presently carry little sediment to the continental shelf as most istrapped in estuaries or coastal marshes. The fine-grained materials found in the bottom sediments havebeen winnowed out and transported either shoreward into estuaries or off the shelf via the canyons ontothe continental slope. The continental slope sediments in the mid-Atlantic area are primarily silt and clay,but seaward of the 3,000 m isobath, fine-grained biogenic calcareous sediments predominate(DoN, 2008).Water PollutantsThe heavy concentration of activity in coastal areas, combined with pollutants flowing from streams farinland and others carried through the air great distances from their source, are the primary causes ofnutrient enrichment, hypoxia, harmful algal blooms, toxic contamination, sedimentation, and otherproblems that plague coastal waters (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy [USCOP], 2004). Not only dodegraded waters cause significant ecological damage, they also lead to economic impacts due to beachclosures, curtailed recreational activities, and additional health care costs. Reducing water pollution willresult in cleaner coastal waters, healthy habitats that support aquatic life, and a suite of economic benefits.Water quality in the VACAPES Study Area is affected by human activities in the heavily developed mid-Atlantic coastal areas. These continental shelf waters are located in the MAB that extends from3-41 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesNantucket Shoals, Massachusetts, to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The Hudson River, Delaware Bay,and Chesapeake Bay are among the large rivers and estuaries that discharge fresh water into the MAB(NASA, 2005). Water quality in Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay are discussed in subsequentsections.The USEPA’s 2002 National Water Quality Inventory found that just over half of the estuarine areasassessed were polluted to the extent that their use was compromised, either for aquatic life, drinkingwater, swimming, boating, or fish consumption. Estuarine waters can directly or indirectly affect marinewater quality of coastal waters. The interagency 2004 Draft National Coastal Condition Report II ratedcoastal waters along the southeast United States as being in fair condition (USCOP, 2004).Point source pollution comes from identifiable sources. The major point sources of pollution to thenation’s waterways include wastewater treatment plants, sewer system overflows, septic systems,industrial facilities, and animal feeding operations. Nutrient pollution has had a major impact on coastalwaters, contributing to toxic algal blooms, loss of seagrass habitat and coral reefs, and oxygen depletion(USCOP, 2004).Nonpoint source pollution arises when rainfall and snowmelt carry contaminants over land, into streamsand groundwater, and down to coastal waters. Nonpoint source pollutants include: fertilizers andpesticides from rural farms and urban lawns; bacteria and viruses from livestock and pet waste; sedimentsfrom improperly managed construction sites and timber harvesting; oil and chemicals flowing overstreets, parking lots, and industrial facilities; and a variety of pollutants being blown along airbornepathways. Ninety percent of impaired water bodies do not meet water quality standards at least in partbecause of nonpoint source pollution. The majority of nonpoint source pollution entering rivers,estuaries, coastal waters, and ultimately the oceans is from agricultural and storm water runoff(USCOP, 2004).Shipboard waste-handling procedures governing the discharge of non-hazardous waste streams wereestablished for commercial and Navy vessels (DoN, 1996). These categories of waste include: (a)Liquids: “black water” (sewage); “gray water” (water from deck drains, showers, dishwashers, laundries,etc.); and oily waste (oil water mixtures); and (b) Solids (garbage). Table 3.3-3 summarizes the wastestream discharge restrictions for Navy vessels at sea.TABLE 3.3-3WASTE DISCHARGE RESTRICTIONS FOR NAVY SHIPSType of WasteZone (nm from shore)Black Water (Sewage)Gray WaterIf vessel is equipped to collect gray water,pump out when in port. If no collectionU.S. Waters (0-3 nm) No discharge.capability exists, direct dischargepermitted.U.S. Contiguous Zone (3-Direct discharge permitted.Direct discharge permitted.12 nm)>12 nm from shore Direct discharge permitted. Direct discharge permitted.Zone Oily Waste Garbage (Non-plastic)U.S. Waters (0-3 nm)U.S. Contiguous Zone (3-12 nm)Discharge allowed if waste has novisible sheen. If equipped with OilContent Monitor (OCM), discharge

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesTABLE 3.3-3WASTE DISCHARGE RESTRICTIONS FOR NAVY SHIPS (Continued)Type of WasteZone (nm from shore)Black Water (Sewage)Gray Water>12 nm from shoreZoneIf equipped with OCM, discharge50 nm from shoreRetain last 20 days before return to Retain last three days before return to port.port. Discharge if necessary. Discharge if necessary.Source: Northern Division 1996; Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 1994A No Discharge Zone (NDZ) is an area of a waterbody or an entire waterbody into which the discharge ofsewage (whether treated or untreated) from all vessels is completely prohibited. There are two NDZs inMaryland and two inVirginia; however, only one in Virginia is relevant to the Study Area. Maryland’sNDZs include Herring Bay and the Northern Coastal Bays. The Herring Bay NDZ is a 3,145-acre area ofwater located along the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay in southern Anne Arundel County. TheNorthern Coastal Bays NDZ is 12,780 acres of water that include all tidal waters north of the Ocean CityInlet to the Delaware State line (USEPA, 2007b).Virginia’s NDZ, as applicable to the Study Area, is for the Lynnhaven River Watershed and encompassesan area of land and water approximately 64 square miles with nearly 150 miles of shoreline located in thenorthern part of the City of Virginia Beach. The Lynnhaven River flows to the Chesapeake Bay throughLynnhaven Inlet and upstream portions of the Lynnhaven River system flow either north to theChesapeake Bay or south to the North Carolina sounds depending on wind and tidal patterns. Thesezones are designed to give states an additional tool to address water quality issues associated with sewagecontamination (USEPA, 2007b).3.3.2.2 Delaware Water QualityDelaware’s Atlantic coastline consists of a series of barrier beaches and dunes from Cape Henlopen toFenwick Island, open only by one large inlet at the Indian River Bay. The Delaware Coastal Programsdifferentiate between the coastal zone and the coastal strip of the state. The entire state is included in thecoastal zone, which is managed by the Delaware Coastal Management Program through several state lawsand authorities, including the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (DNREC, 2002).The coastal strip is an approximately 4-mile wide band of land that parallels the entire Delawarecoastline. It was defined by the Delaware State Coastal Zone Act of 1971, which is the primary authorityfor regulating heavy industry, manufacturing, and bulk transfer facilities in the coastal strip. Nearly3-43 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water Resources25 miles of beaches border the Atlantic Ocean; almost half are in state parks (NOAA, 2007a;DNREC, 2002).The Delaware Estuary is one of the largest in the east, at 685 square miles of water surface, exceeded onlyby the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, and the combined Pamlico-Albemarle Sounds (Frithsen etal., 1991). The Delaware Estuary includes 5,985 square miles of drainage area, which is approximately47 percent of the Delaware River Basin. The Delaware River provides the estuary with 58 percent of itsfreshwater input. Delaware Bay lies between the shorelines of Delaware and New Jersey. The averagedepth of Delaware Bay (in the zone nearest the ocean) is 31.5 feet. Maximum depth, which is in theshipping lane near the Harbor of Refuge in Lewes, Delaware, is 151 feet (Sutton et al., 1996).There are four regions of the Delaware Estuary; however, only three are discussed here (Lower Estuary,Upper Estuary, and Delaware Bay regions), as they are most proximal to coastal waters. The UpperEstuary region stretches from Trenton, New Jersey southwestward to the Pennsylvania/ Delaware border,and consists of 1,743 square miles of small sub-watersheds in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Riverfrontindustry and development, as well as several major ports, make the Delaware River a critical economicresource to both states in this region. Contaminants from an industrial legacy and water withdrawalsserving the needs of industry and urban populations are the major sources of concern here, in addition towastewater and combined sewer overflows and storm water runoff (Partnership for the DelawareEstuary, 2006).The Lower Estuary region stretches south from the Delaware/Pennsylvania border, to the point where theDelaware River opens to become the Delaware Bay. This region, encompassing 1,020 square miles,includes the Christina River Basin in Delaware and the Salem River Watershed in New Jersey, as well asseveral smaller watersheds. Riverfront industry and the Port of Wilmington make this area a significanteconomic resource and, thus, present many of the same opportunities and challenges as in the UpperEstuary region. The mixing of salt and fresh water in this portion of the Delaware River makes turbidityand its effects on legacy pollutants a major concern. The importance of maintaining wetlands here forwater quality and flood control also involves sediment budgeting (Partnership for the DelawareEstuary, 2006).The Delaware Bay region stretches southeast from the widening of the Delaware River to the AtlanticOcean. This region of 1,539 square miles includes the Maurice River Watershed in New Jersey and theMispillion River Watershed in Delaware, as well as smaller sub-watersheds along both sides of theDelaware Bay. Recreational boating, fishing, and tourism are major economic influences in this region.Runoff from agriculture and storm water from increasing development (on shallow soil) are majorconcerns (Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, 2006).The Delaware Estuary has one of the highest nutrient inputs of any major estuary in North America(Sutton et al., 1996). Urban wastewater is the major source of both nitrogen and phosphorus in theestuarine system. On average, total phosphorus dropped dramatically in the early 1970s, but stayedrelatively constant since that time. Ammonium concentrations have been steadily declining, withproportionate increases in nitrogen concentrations (Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, 2006).The Delaware Estuary is negatively impacted to varying degrees by toxic substances released to its watersthrough human activities. Elevated levels of heavy metals and organic contaminants such as pesticidesand polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) were detected in the sediment, water column, and in organisms ofthe estuary. While there are few exceedances of USEPA’s water quality criteria for toxic substances inthe Delaware Estuary, there are concerns about long-term, chronic impacts. The highest concentrations oftoxic substances occur in the urban area, such as those in the water column or those in bottom sediments.There may be some point sources for metals, but organic contaminants appear to be primarily fromnonpoint sources (Delaware Estuary Program, 1998).3-44 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesMetal concentrations tend to decline from the transition zone to the ocean, probably as a result ofincreasing dilution by seawater and fewer dischargers. Storms, dredging, and to some degree shippingand boating activities, re-suspend sediments and potentially remobilize these metals. Total loadings ofarsenic, chromium, copper, and lead to the Delaware Estuary are approximately 110 tons. A significantportion of these loadings originate from point sources discharging directly into the estuary; however,nonpoint sources also contribute to the loadings. Urban runoff contributes significant metals to theestuary. Agricultural runoff adds a significant source of arsenic to the estuary because of long-term use ofinorganic pesticides. Atmospheric deposition contributes a small proportion of the total loadings ofarsenic, chromium, and lead. Urban runoff, point sources, atmospheric deposition, and groundwater allcontribute significant amounts of mercury to the estuary. The total yearly loading of mercury isapproximately 11 tons (Delaware Estuary Program, 1998).The highest level of organic toxic substances are associated with urban areas. Chlorinated hydrocarbonsare of particular concern because they biomagnify in biota. Some of these compounds can be formed as aresult of water treatment by chlorination. Most contributions of chlorinated pesticides to the estuary arefrom agricultural runoff, amounting to approximately 11 tons per year (Delaware Estuary Program, 1998).DNREC adopted a watershed approach to determine the most effective and efficient methods forprotecting water quality or abating existing problems. Five basins and 41 watersheds were delineated.Under the watershed approach, DNREC will evaluate all sources of pollution that may impact a waterwayand target the most significant sources for management (USEPA, 2000).Summary of Delaware Water Quality The entire State of Delaware is in the coastal zone. The water resources related to the Study Area include the coastal zone, Delaware Estuary andDelaware Bay. The primary water quality concerns in the Delaware Estuary include nutrients (nitrogen andphosphorus) and urban wastewater is the major source. Other water quality concerns include toxics (i.e., metals, arsenic, chromium, lead, chlorinatedhydrocarbons) and organic contaminants; however, the highest concentrations are primarily found inthe water column in urban areas or bottom sediments from urban and agricultural runoff, andatmospheric deposition. Metal concentrations decline as the progression is made from the transition zone to the ocean due todilution by seawater and fewer dischargers.3.3.2.3 Maryland Water QualityMaryland’s coastal zone includes 16 counties and Baltimore City, encompasses two-thirds of the State’sland, and is home to 67.83 percent of its residents. Maryland has 4,360 miles of coastline along theChesapeake Bay, Coastal Bays, and Atlantic Ocean, and almost 95 percent drains to the Chesapeake Bay(Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 2007). Most of the ocean shoreline supports aquatic life(USEPA, 2000).The Maryland coastal zone is composed of the land, water, and subaqueous land between the territoriallimits of Maryland in the Chesapeake Bay, coastal bays, and Atlantic Ocean, as well as the towns, cities,and counties that contain the coastline. It falls into two distinct regions: the Atlantic Coast, including theAtlantic Coastal Bays (Coastal Bays), and the Chesapeake Bay, which together equal 7,719 miles ofshoreline. The Maryland Coastal Zone extends from 3 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean to the inlandboundaries of the 16 counties bordering the Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay, and the Potomac River upto the District of Columbia. The State has a National Estuarine Research Reserve funded by NOAA and3-45 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesMaryland. The Chesapeake Bay, Maryland Reserve has three components located in Harford, AnneArundel, Prince George’s, and Somerset Counties (NOAA, 2007b).Maryland’s Coastal Bays, provide habitat for a wide range of aquatic life. The main threats to these baysinclude development, nutrients, sediments, and other anthropogenic sources. Water quality conditions inMaryland’s Coastal Bays range from generally degraded conditions within or close to tributaries to betterconditions in the bay regions. High nitrate levels are found in the freshwater reaches of streams,including excess algae, chronic brown tide blooms, algal blooms, and incidents of low dissolved oxygendue to nutrient enrichment (Wazniak et al., 2004).Nutrient overenrichment from nitrogen and phosphorus is a threat to the Coastal Bays, leading todegraded water quality and ecosystem health. Symptoms of ecosystem degradation include increasedphytoplankton blooms (measured as water column chlorophyll a) and related swings in dissolved oxygen.The upper tributaries, such as the northern Coastal Bays and Newport Bay, are severely enriched innitrogen; the southern Coastal Bays, including Sinepuxent and Chincoteague, have the lowest totalnitrogen concentrations. Phosphorus enrichment is more widespread than nitrogen enrichment.Chlorophyll values were generally low in the open bays (Wazniak et al., 2004).Although the Coastal Bays are shallow lagoons that typically do not stratify, oxygen values are frequentlylow in some areas. The Water Quality Index synthesizes the status of the four water quality indicators:chlorophyll a (algae), total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and dissolved oxygen into a single indicator ofwater quality and compares measured variables to values known to maintain fisheries and seagrasses(Wazniak et al., 2004). Currently, tributaries generally show poor to very degraded water quality,primarily due to high nutrient inputs, while the open bays have good to excellent water quality. Also, thenorthern bays are generally in poorer condition than the southern bays. More highly flushed regions suchas Sinepuxent Bay and south Chincoteague Bay have excellent water quality; however, southChincoteague has many sites with high phosphorus concentrations (Wazniak et al., 2004).Nutrient concentrations are variable between the two regions and many sites throughout the system aredisplaying subsequent ecosystem effects of high phytoplankton and reduced dissolved oxygen. Since thishas an impact on aquatic communities, some regions within the Coastal Bays do not provide suitablehabitat for seagrasses or fish (Wazniak et al., 2004).Potomac RiverThe Potomac River watershed comprises about 22 percent of the land area, and 30 percent of thepopulation of the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, 2007).As a result, pollution loads from the Potomac River have a significant impact on the health of the bay.The District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia have placed portions of the tidal Potomac River ontheir 303(d) impaired waters lists for PCB contamination. Fish consumption advisories were issued dueto elevated PCB concentrations in fish tissue and PCB concentrations in water have exceeded statestandards in some cases. The TMDL analysis for each jurisdiction must include a determination of thesources that contribute to the impairment and by what amount those sources must be reduced so that PCBlevels in fish and in water meet or fall below state standards. A single TMDL was developed for the threejurisdictions; USEPA, Region III, issued a Decision Rational for approval of the TDML on 31October 2007 (Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, 2007).Summary of Maryland Water QualityMaryland has 4,360 miles of coastline along the Chesapeake Bay, Coastal Bays, and Atlantic Ocean,and almost 95 percent drains to the Chesapeake Bay.3-46 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water Resources The water resources in Maryland most relevant to the Study Area include the coastal zone,Chesapeake Bay, Coastal Bays, and the Potomac River. Nutrient enrichment (both nitrogen and phosphorus) is the main threat to water quality in the CoastalBays, with higher concentrations in the northern coastal bays. Pollution from the Potomac River has an impact on the Chesapeake Bay. Portions of the PotomacRiver were placed on the 303(d) impaired waters list. A TMDL for PCBs was jointly developed bythe District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia and subsequently approved by USEPA, on 31October 2007.3.3.2.4 Virginia Water QualityVirginia’s coastal zone covers 8,950 square miles, or approximately one quarter of the state, and isdefined by the boundaries of counties, cities, and towns adjacent to tidal waters. Open waters in thesouthern (lower) half of Chesapeake Bay, and the tidal waters of the James, York, and RappahannockRivers occupy almost 2,400 square miles of that area. According to recent measurements, the interfacebetween open water and land in the coastal zone extends along more than 10,000 miles of tidal shoreline(NOAA, 2007c; VA DEQ, 2001).Water quality parameters are measured at over 4,000 stations in Virginia’s coastal zone (VA DEQ, 2001).The monitoring data indicate that 316 coastal water bodies are impaired, meaning they do not meetstandards for their designated uses (supporting aquatic life, shellfish harvesting, swimming, or supplyingdrinking water).The majority of areas in the coastal zone that fail to meet standards are impaired for use as shellfishharvesting waters due to bacteria. Approximately 142 square miles of Virginia tidal waters are closed toharvesting of shellfish; TMDLs for these areas will be developed by 2010. The Virginia Department ofHealth (VDH) Division of Health Hazard Controls has six health advisories in effect to restrict and oneadvisory to prohibit fish consumption (USEPA, 2000). Fishing is allowed in all Virginia tidal waters;however, several health advisories exist for waters in basins within the Study Area, including the JamesRiver Basin (kepone, an insecticide, and PCBs), York River Basin (PCBs and mercury), RappahannockRiver Basin (PCBs), and the Chesapeake Bay/Atlantic Ocean and Small Coastal Basin (PCBs andmercury) (VA DEQ, 2006).Virginia’s Coastal Program links state agencies and programs that manage diverse coastal resources alongthe Chesapeake Bay; the Atlantic Ocean; the Rappahannock, York, and James Rivers; and portions of thetidal Potomac River. Key issues for the Commonwealth include restoration of the oyster fishery, waterquality in the Chesapeake Bay, and management of a growing aquaculture industry (VA DEQ, 2001).Rappahannock RiverThe Rappahannock River Basin is located in the northeastern portion of Virginia and covers 2,715 squaremiles (approximately 6.8% of Virginia’s total area). The Rappahannock River Basin is bordered by thePotomac-Shenandoah Basin to the north and the York River Basin and Coastal Basin to the south. Theheadwaters lie in Fauquier and Rappahannock Counties and flow in a southeasterly direction to its mouth,where it enters the Chesapeake Bay (VA DEQ, 2006).Agriculture, atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, industrial and municipal point sources, internal nutrientrecycling, loss of riparian habitat, and sources outside the jurisdiction are the main contributors to waterquality contamination in estuarine waters of the Rappahannock River Basin. There are 18 approvedTMDLs for this basin, 12 for fecal coliform and six for Escherichia coli (E. coli) (VA DEQ, 2006).3-47 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISYork RiverChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesThe York River Basin lies in the central and eastern section of Virginia and covers 2,662 square miles(approximately 7% of the Virginia’s total area). It is defined by hydrologic boundaries. The basin isbounded by the Rappahannock River Basin to the north and east and the James River Basin to the southand west. The headwaters of the York River begin in Orange County and flow in a southeasterlydirection for approximately 220 miles to its mouth at the Chesapeake Bay (VA DEQ, 2006).The sources of water quality contamination in estuarine waters of the York River Basin include industrialpoint sources, municipal point sources, agriculture, atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, sedimentation,internal nutrient recycling, sources outside of the jurisdiction and unknown sources. There are fiveapproved TMDLs for this basin, one for fecal coliform and four for E. coli (VA DEQ, 2006).James RiverThe James River Basin occupies the central portion of Virginia and covers 10,206 square miles orapproximately 25 percent of the Commonwealth’s total land area. It is Virginia’s largest river basin andis made up of the Upper, Middle, and Lower James River Subbasin and the Appomattox River Subbasin.The James River Basin begins in the Alleghany Mountains, and the river flows in a southeasterlydirection to Hampton Roads where it enters the Chesapeake Bay. The James is formed by the confluenceof the Jackson and Cowpasture Rivers and flows 228 miles to the Fall Line at Richmond and another111 miles to the Chesapeake Bay. The population for the James River Basin is concentrated inTidewater, with over one million people, and the Greater Richmond/Petersburg area with over750,000 (VA DEQ, 2006).The lower James River subbasin is most proximal to the EIS Study Area. Industrial and municipal pointsources, agriculture, atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, internal nutrient recycling, loss of riparianhabitat, and sources outside the jurisdiction are the main contributors to water quality contamination inestuarine waters of the James River Basin. There are four TMDLs in the lower James River Basin; twoare for E. coli, one is for enterococci and fecal coliform, and the fourth is for phosphorus (VADEQ, 2007).Nearly all of Virginia’s estuarine waters flow into the Chesapeake Bay (VA DEQ, 2006). The control ofnonpoint source pollution and implementation of best management practices comprise much of the effortto improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Water quality monitoring data, landuse inventories, animal density data, and other information is used to assess watersheds for nonpointsource pollution control efforts. At present, most of the coastal zone outside of the undeveloped portionsof the upper York River watershed are ranked as high or medium priorities for nonpoint source pollutioncontrol. This reflects the potential for pollution created by development and the prevalence of agriculturalnutrient use on the Middle Peninsula, Northern Neck, and Eastern Shore.Summary of Virginia Water QualityVirginia’s coastal zone covers 8,950 square miles, or approximately one quarter of the stateThe water resources in Virginia most relevant to the Study Area include the coastal zone, ChesapeakeBay, and the James, York and Rappahannock Rivers.Industrial and municipal point sources, agriculture, atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, internalnutrient recycling, loss of riparian habitat, and sources outside the jurisdiction are the main threats toestuarine water quality.The VDH has issued 52 fish consumption advisories in the state (12 for mercury, 39 for PCBs and onefor kepone). The advisories in the Study Area include the James River Basin for kepone (aninsecticide), mercury, and PCBs; York River Basin for PCBs and mercury; Rappahannock River Basinfor PCBs; and the Chesapeake Bay/Atlantic Ocean and Small Coastal Basin for PCBs and mercury.3-48 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChesapeake BayChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesThe Chesapeake Bay Program is a regional partnership that directs and conducts restoration of theChesapeake Bay (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2007). Chesapeake 2000 is the most recent agreement bythe partners in the Chesapeake Bay Program and is intended to guide restoration activities throughout theBay watershed through 2010.The Chesapeake Bay is the largest of 130 estuaries in the United States, with a watershed that includesparts of six states (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia) and all ofthe District of Columbia (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2007). The Bay is about 200 miles long, stretchingfrom Havre de Grace, Maryland to Norfolk, Virginia (Figure 3.3-2). The Bay’s width ranges from3.4 miles near Aberdeen, Maryland, to 35 miles near the mouth of the Potomac River. The Bay receivesabout half of its water volume from the Atlantic Ocean; the rest drains into the Bay from a 64,000 squaremile drainage basin or watershed.The Chesapeake Bay holds more than 18 trillion gallons of water. There are approximately 150 majorrivers and streams in the Chesapeake drainage basin (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2007). The SusquehannaRiver in south central Pennsylvania provides about 50 percent of the freshwater coming into the Bay - anaverage of 19 million gallons of water per minute. The water in the Chesapeake Bay is shallow; althoughthe Bay covers a large surface area, its average depth, including all tidal tributaries, is about 21 feet. TheBay’s salinity ranges from freshwater (0-0.5 ppt) near the Susquehanna River to water of nearly oceanicsalinity (30-35 ppt) at the mouth of the Bay. The Bay has two of the five major North Atlantic ports inthe United States, including Baltimore and Hampton Roads.Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay is influenced by natural conditions as well as anthropogenicsources. The weather plays a large role in conditions in the Bay and a typical year is as follows. Rain inthe spring washes pollutant loads into the Bay, and lowers salinities to the minimum for the year.Summer weather plays a role as surface water temperature increases with air temperature increases.Salinity rises during the summer due to less rainfall and increased evaporation, and stratification occursbetween surface and bottom water. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels are also at their lowest (often anoxic),especially in the deeper tributaries such as the Potomac and Baltimore Harbor. Fall brings aboutimproved water clarity, decreased water temperature and increased salinity. Due to colder temperaturesin winter, the water is well mixed, which causes temperature, salinity and oxygen levels to be similarthroughout the water column. DO levels are at also their highest during the winter; however, biologicalactivity is reduced (Maryland DNR, 2007).The Chesapeake Bay was listed as an impaired water body under the Clean Water Act (CWA) due toexcess nutrients and sediment (USGS, 2007). Improvements in water quality conditions must be made by2010, or regulatory approaches to achieve these standards will be implemented. A summary the keywater quality issues in the Chesapeake Bay is presented below.Summary of Key Water Quality Issues in the Chesapeake BayThe February 2004 Biennial Report of The Secretary of Natural Resources to The Virginia GeneralAssembly (Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, 2004) summarized several key water quality issues inthe Chesapeake Bay, including excessive levels of nutrients and their impact on living resources andimpacts from toxic chemicals in regions with existing or potential problems. The following discussion oftrends is specific to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.3-49 March 2009

80°W75°W70°WMaineVermontNew HampshireNew YorkMassachusettsConnecticutRhode IslandOhioPennsylvania40°NNew Jersey40°NWest VirginiaMarylandDistrict of ColumbiaDelawareVirginiaVACAPES OPAREANorth Carolina35°N35°NSouth CarolinaGeorgiaATLANTIC OCEAN80°W75°W70°WLegendVACAPES OPAREAFigure 3.3-2Chesapeake Bay WatershedChesapeake BayWatershed0 25 50 100 150 200Nautical MilesVACAPESSources: Ranges and OPAREAS from FACSFAC JAX Inst 3210.1HRange Complexand NWAS, FTRD May 2000, USGS Hydrologic Unit Boundaries (2005) Coordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-50

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesNutrient loadings from watershed input monitoring stations were affected by the reduced point andnonpoint inputs but are highly dependent on river flow patterns as well. There were decreased loadings ofnitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments due to decreased flow; however, some decreased loadings are due tomanagement actions (Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, 2004).Phosphorus levels in water entering from the Bay watershed reflected both point and nonpoint sourcenutrient source reductions by the evidence of improving concentration trends in some rivers. Overall,there were eight areas showing improving trends and five areas showing degrading trends for phosphorus(Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, 2004).For nitrogen, the Potomac River and James River showed improving trends in water entering from thewatershed. Nitrogen levels also showed improving trends in much of the tidal Potomac and JamesRivers. Improving trends were also found for the first time in the mainstem Virginia Chesapeake Bay.Degrading trends are a concern in the upper Rappahannock River (Virginia Secretary of NaturalResources, 2004).According to the 2006 Chesapeake Bay Report Card, the overall health of the bay as related to waterquality was poor, due to very poor water clarity, poor chlorophyll a, and good dissolved oxygen (except indeep water channels). The poor rating for water clarity is attributed to an extremely turbid year during2006, which was the worst water clarity assessment since monitoring began in 1985. The lower Bay,which is most applicable to the Study Area, received ratings of very poor water clarity and chlorophyll a;however, had the second best biotic index due to good benthic and moderate phytoplankton communitiesscores, which gave a total ranking of average to the lower Bay. The causes for turbidity during 2006 havenot been determined (EcoCheck, 2007).In summary, conditions for nitrogen and dissolved oxygen are generally improving; conversely, trends aregenerally declining for phosphorus, chlorophyll, suspended solids, and water clarity. These patterns are acombined result of both management controls of nutrient inputs and the natural effects of rainfall (i.e., thedrought that ended in 2003) (Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, 2004).3.3.2.5 North Carolina QualityNorth Carolina has 3,375 miles of coastline. Some of the greatest challenges facing North Carolina’scoastal zone are the impacts from population growth and coastal development, including loss of sensitivecoastal habitats (NOAA, 2007d). Storm water runoff is a leading cause of water quality problems alongthe North Carolina coast, and mercury was identified as a major contaminant in fish tissue in all coastalriver basins (North Carolina DENR/DWQ, 2002a).Albemarle- Pamlico Estuarine ComplexThe Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Complex (Complex) drains approximately 30,000 square miles ofwatershed and is the largest lagoonal estuarine system in the United States. This National EstuaryProgram (NEP) has a 23,000-square mile study area that extends south from Prince George County,Virginia, to Carteret County, North Carolina, and includes seven sounds (Albemarle, Bogue, Core,Croatan, Currituck, Pamlico, and Roanoke) (APNEP, 2006).A chain of islands forms a barrier with the Atlantic Ocean on the eastern side of the Complex. TheComplex is characterized by random wind-driven tides, which result in less predictable variations inwater circulation and salinity patterns (Focazio, 2006).The Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP) was among the first NEPs established byUSEPA in 1987. The issues of environmental concern for the APNEP are water quality, habitat quality,and fishery resources. Impairment of waters in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Complex are primarilyattributed to nonpoint sources of pollution; agricultural and urban runoff being the most prevalent. A3-51 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water Resourcessmaller, but still significant amount of water quality impairment in the system is attributed to point-sourcedischarges along the rivers flowing into the Complex (USEPA, 2007b).The overall condition of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Complex is rated good to fair based on the fourindices of estuarine condition used by the National Coastal Assessment (NCA). The water quality indexfor the Complex is rated good, the sediment quality and fish tissue contaminants indices are rated good tofair, and the benthic index is rated fair. This index was developed using NCA data on five componentindicators: dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP), chlorophyll a,water clarity, and DO. Only four percent of the Complex’s estuarine area was rated poor for waterquality; 35 percent was rated fair (USEPA, 2007b).The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Complex is rated good for DIN and DIP concentrations. DIPrepresents about 97 percent of the total phosphorus measurement for estuaries of the Southeast Coastregion (USEPA, 2007a). The Complex is rated fair for chlorophyll a concentrations, good for waterclarity (water clarity was rated poor at a sampling site if light penetration at 1 meter was less than 10% ofsurface illumination), and fair for dissolved oxygen concentrations (USEPA, 2007b).Although trends in nutrient concentrations in the Complex appear to be very site-specific, the waters ofthese estuaries are generally rich in phosphorus and relatively nitrogen-limited (Harned andDavenport, 1990; APNEP, 2006). Water quality measurements and trend analysis conducted across theentire Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Complex demonstrated some noticeable long-term patterns between1945 and 1988, including the following: Increased dissolved oxygen levels (in general); Increased pH (in general); Decreased levels of suspended solids; and Increased chlorophyll a levels (Harned and Davenport, 1990).A major source of nutrient loading to the waters of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Complex is runofffrom agricultural activities (Harned and Davenport, 1990; North Carolina DEHNR, 1997). Enhancedrunoff of nutrients in the spring season was a major contributor to nuisance harmful algal blooms duringthe summer months. Atmospheric deposition accounts for an average of 27 percent of total nitrogeninputs and 22 percent of total phosphorus inputs to the drainage basin of the Albemarle-Pamlico EstuarineComplex (McMahon and Woodside, 1997).Freshwater inputs to the system are provided by five major rivers — the Pasquotank, Chowan, andRoanoke Rivers that flow into Albemarle Sound, and the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse rivers that flow intoPamlico Sound. TMDLs were finalized for the Roanoke River (DO and dioxine), Tar River (nutrientsand DO), and the Neuse River Estuary (total nitrogen) (North Carolina DENR/DWQ, 2007b).The Pasquotank River Water Quality Monitoring Program was established in 1998 and monitored waterquality parameters including pH, nitrates, phosphates, DO, temperature, total dissolved solids,conductivity, and microbiology for one year to assess the health of the river. Pollution from nonpointsources is the main concern. The most likely sources include agricultural runoff, of which pig farmingoperations are the largest contributor, faulty septic tank systems, wastewater treatment plant effluent,runoff from lawns, and storm water runoff from Elizabeth City, the largest populated area on the River(North Carolina DENR/DWQ, 1997). A summary of data from the water quality monitoring programindicate the river has good water quality during the winter months, with the exception of high levels ofcoliforms and E. coli, which are expected to increase during the summer and warmer periods. It wassuggested that further research be conducted to identify and locate the sources of contamination(Elizabeth City State University, 2007).3-52 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesThe Chowan River watershed lies in portions of Virginia and North Carolina. The majority of theChowan River’s watershed is in Virginia and is managed as the Chowan River and Dismal Swamp basin.This portion of the watershed covers 4,061 square miles of the Chowan River and Chowan River basin’sheadwaters (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, 2007). The Chowan River basin inNorth Carolina is composed of the Chowan River and Meherrin River drainages. Water qualityinformation for the North Carolina portion of the Chowan River basin is scarce; however, the basin ismonitored for benthic macroinvertebrates, fish assessments, aquatic toxicity and ambient monitoring.Ambient monitoring data shows that dissolved oxygen levels are naturally low since they are influencedby swamp and wetland conditions, which can lower dissolved oxygen concentrations and decrease pH.Turbidity, total suspended solids, and copper were generally low. Most ambient water quality concerns inthe Chowan River basin are attributed to nonpoint sources. The data available indicate that water qualityis generally good and all waters in the basin are designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) (NorthCarolina DENR/DWQ, 2002a). The NSW designation is assigned to waters that have problems due toincreased nitrogen and phosphorus loading to the system and may require the development andimplementation of a strategy, such as a TMDL, to manage both point and nonpoint nutrient sources tomeet water quality goals.Elevated concentrations of mercury were found in fish tissue (largemouth bass and bowfin, both longlivedfish species, which indicates bioaccumulation) in both the Pasquotank and Chowan River basins;however, atmospheric deposition was found to be the significant contributor of mercury contamination.There are no basin-specific fish consumption advisories for the Chowan or Pasquotank River basins;however, there is a statewide advisory for bowfish, which is found in all river basins (North CarolinaDENR/DWQ, 2002b).Summary of North Carolina Water Quality North Carolina’s coastal zone covers 3,375 miles. The water resources in North Carolina most relevant to the Study Area include the coastal zone andthe Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Complex.Storm water runoff is a leading cause of water quality problems along the North Carolina coastImpairment of waters in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Complex is primarily attributed to nonpointsources of pollution (the most prevalent being agricultural and urban runoff) and point-sourcedischarges along the rivers flowing into the Complex to a lesser degree.The overall condition of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Complex is rated good to fair based on thefour indices of estuarine condition used by the National Coastal Assessment.TMDLs were finalized for the Roanoke River (DO and dioxin), Tar River (nutrients and DO), and theNeuse River Estuary (total nitrogen).Primary sources of pollution to the Pasquotank River are agricultural runoff, of which pig farmingoperations are the largest contributor, faulty septic tank systems, wastewater treatment plant effluent,runoff from lawns, and storm water runoff. Overall, the water quality is good, with the exception offecal coliform bacteria and E. coli.Water quality in the Chowan River Basin is generally good; however, all waters in the basin aredesignated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters. Most ambient water quality concerns in the Chowan Riverbasin are attributed to nonpoint sources.3-53 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water Resources3.3.3 Environmental Consequences:3.3.3.1 No Action AlternativeVACAPES OPAREABombsBombs with live ordnance are fused to detonate on contact with the water, and it is estimated that99 percent of them would explode within 5 feet of the ocean surface (DoN, 2005a). Propelled fragmentswould be produced by an exploding bomb. Sixty one percent of the bombs used under the No ActionAlternative would be practice bombs without explosive warheads. Thirty nine percent of the 1,203bombs deployed under the No Action Alternative for the VACAPES Range Complex sea range are highexplosive.Typically, bombing exercises (BOMBEX) at sea involve one or more aircraft bombing a target simulatinga hostile surface vessel. Practice bombs are also called bomb dummy units (BDU) and are considerednon-explosive practice munitions (NEPM). They are bomb bodies filled with an inert material (e.g.,concrete) and configured with either low-drag conical tail fins or high-drag tail fins for retarded weapondelivery. A BDU mimics the weight, size, center of gravity, and ballistics of a high explosive bomb.BDUs would be used within the VACAPES Range Complex. These practice munitions may containspotting charges/signal cartridges that produce a visual indication of impact.Chemical effects to the marine environment and water quality are considered to be negligible from aBOMBEX (DoN, 2005a). Initial concentrations of the chemical by-products of ordnance detonations arenot hazardous to marine life and are rapidly dispersed in the ocean. Small and mostly metallic pieces ofthe bomb will quickly come to rest on the seafloor with each detonation. Numerous steel non-explosivepractice bombs will likewise find their way to the seafloor. All these materials will slowly deterioratewith time and, given that they will be spread out over a relatively large area, their potential impact on theenvironment is considered to be negligible.Bombs used at the VACAPES Range Complex under the No Action Alternative are listed in Chapter 2,and their approximate weight, length, and diameter are provided in Section 3.2.MissilesMissiles would be fired by aircraft and ships at a variety of airborne and surface targets on the VACAPESRange Complex. The principal source of potential impacts to water and sediment quality would be theunburned solid propellant residue, as well as other hazardous materials used in igniters, explosive bolts,batteries, and warheads. However, the rocket motor is typically fully expended prior to the missilereaching the target. Further, if it is a high explosive missile, the warhead is detonated prior to hitting thewater as well. Approximately 27 percent of the 300 missiles fired on the VACAPES Range Complexcarry non-explosive practice warheads with no hazardous constituents.Testing demonstrated that water penetrates only 0.06 inches into the propellant during the first 24 hoursof immersion, and that fragments would very slowly release ammonium and perchlorate ions (AerospaceCorporation, 1998 in DoN, 2007). These ions would be expected to be rapidly diluted and disperse in thesurrounding water so that local concentrations would be extremely low. However, assuming allpropellant on the ocean floor will be in the form of 4-inch cubes, only 0.42 percent of it will be wettedduring the first 24 hours. If all the ammonium perchlorate leaches out of the wetted propellant, thenapproximately 0.01 lb would enter the surrounding seawater. The concentration would decrease overtime as the leaching rate decreases and further dilution occurs. The aluminum would remain in thepropellant binder and eventually be oxidized by seawater to aluminum oxide. The remaining binder3-54 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water Resourcesmaterial and aluminum oxide would not pose a threat to the marine environment. Therefore, effects frommissile propellant may have temporary, minimal impacts on water quality.The effects of hydrocarbon releases on water quality were analyzed using the federal criteria in theNational Ambient Water Quality Criteria (NAWQC), which includes maximum concentration levels forthe protection of aquatic life from contaminants in water. Saltwater criteria exist for benzene and toluene,and three polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds: naphthalene, acenaphthene, andfluoranthene. However, both benzene and toluene are very volatile and are unlikely to be present after ashort period, and fluoranthene is generally not present or is found in such low amounts (

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water Resourcescontrolled target boats and underwater targets designed to simulate submarines. If severely damaged ordisplaced, targets may sink before they can be retrieved. Aerial targets on the VACAPES RangeComplex would include AST/ALQ/ESM pods; Banner drones; BQM-74E drones; Cheyenne; Lear Jets;and Tactical Air-Launched Decoys (TALD). The only expendable target is the TALD; all other aerialtargets are non-expendable.Target Assumptions. Potentially hazardous materials in targets (e.g., BQM-74) include fuel andbatteries. A BQM-74 starts operation with 107-lbs of liquid fuel, and it was assumed that 20 percent ofthe fuel (i.e., 21.5 lbs) would remain at the completion of each mission. It was also conservativelyassumed that five percent of the fuel comprised PAHs (PAHs such as acenaphthene generally make upless than 4% of fuel oil, and naphthalene is generally less than 1% [National Research Council, 1985]).This analysis also assumed a worst-case scenario in which the target would be destroyed on impact withthe water rather than recovered intact. The majority of targets are recovered by use of an engine cut-offswitch and a parachute. The target is retrieved from the water by helicopter.In the case of a severe malfunction and a crash, water surface impacts would occur at a speed of at least500 knots (600 mph) and could realistically affect an area up to 10 times the size of the target (taking intoconsideration water displacement). A typical target (BQM-74) is approximately 12.9 feet long, 2.3 feethigh, with a wingspan of approximately 5.8 feet. Therefore, the analysis assumed a circle with a diameterof 58 feet would encompass the affected area. Given the low density of the hazardous constituents (e.g.,fuel, oil) relative to seawater, the analysis also assumed that only the top 3 feet of the water column wouldbe affected. Based on these assumptions, the affected surface area would be about 10,600 ft 2 and theaffected volume of seawater would be 2.5 x 10 5 gallons. The resulting concentration of PAHs would be503 g/L for each operation. This concentration is below the threshold established in the NAWQC fornaphthalene (acute = 2,350 g/L) and acenaphthene (acute = 970 g/L; chronic = 710 g/L). Note:1 g/L = 1 ppb.Naval Gun FireNaval gun fire exercises at the VACAPES Range Complex would use non-explosive and explosive 5-inchand 76-mm rounds, and non-explosive practice 2.75-inch rockets containing an iron shell and sand, irongrit , or cement filler. Eighty one percent of the 5-inch and 76-mm rounds are non-explosive. Thesurface area of the ocean affected by the impact of a non-explosive 5-inch and 76-mm round is 20 in 2 and12 in 2 , respectively. An estimated 4,422 5-inch rounds and 72 76-mm rounds are fired annually under theNo Action Alternative during the VACAPES Range Complex exercises that use 5-inch guns. Whenadded together, this creates an estimated impact area accumulating to 0.00002 nm 2 , which whencompared to the total VACAPES Range area (27,661 nm 2 ), becomes negligible.Unexploded 5-inch shells and non-explosive practice munitions would not be recovered and would sinkto the ocean floor. Solid metal components of unexploded ordnance and non-explosive practicemunitions would also sink.Any changes in water quality would be negligible based on the dispersed nature of the expended rounds,slow breakdown rates, and enormous dilution capacity of the surrounding sea water. Therefore, indirecteffects resulting from changes in water quality would not occur.Small Arms and Close-In Weapons System FireThe projectiles for .50-caliber and 7.62-mm gun ammunition typically contain lead cores. The 20-mmand 25-mm projectiles used in Close-In Weapons Systems training are typically inert tungsten. Anestimated 540 grenades would also be used. Expended bullets may release small amounts of iron,aluminum, copper and tungsten into the sediments and the overlying water column as bullets corrode.Although elevated levels of these elements can cause toxic reactions in exposed animals, high3-56 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water Resourcesconcentrations in sediments would be restricted to a small zone around the bullet, and releases to theoverlying water column would be quickly diluted (DoN, 2005b).An estimated total of 808,160 small arms rounds; 201,700 cannon shells; and 540 non-explosive practice40-mm grenades would be used under the No Action Alternative.As with naval gun fire, any changes in water quality would be negligible based on the dispersed nature ofthe expended rounds, slow breakdown rates, and enormous dilution capacity of the surrounding sea water.Therefore, indirect effects resulting from changes in water quality would not occur.ChaffChaff would be used during Chaff Exercises throughout the VACAPES Range Complex. Under the NoAction Alternative, it is estimated that 1,821 Chaff Exercises would be held per year, releasing about18,198 canisters of chaff in the VACAPES Range Complex. The amount of chaff used on any given dayvaries based on scheduled training events. Radiofrequency chaff (chaff) is an electronic countermeasuredesigned to reflect radar waves and obscure aircraft, ships, and other equipment from radar trackingsources. All components of the aluminum coating are present in seawater in trace amounts, exceptmagnesium, which is present at 0.1 percent. The stearic acid coating is biodegradable and nontoxic. Thepotential for chaff to have a long-term adverse impact on water quality is very unlikely, and chemicalsleached from the chaff will also be diluted by the surrounding seawater, thus reducing the potential forconcentrations to build up to levels that can have effects on sediment quality and benthic habitats.Even though chaff dipoles contain aluminum and other trace metals that can ultimately be leached fromthe chaff, the amount of chaff needed to raise environmental concentrations of these metals abovebackground levels far exceeds the number than can be realistically deposited in a given area of land orbody of water. As such, chaff releases are not expected to have any significant effect on ecosystemfunctioning in either terrestrial or aquatic environments (Farrell and Siciliano, 2007)For each chaff cartridge used, a plastic end-cap and Plexiglas piston is released into the environment inaddition to the chaff fibers. The end-cap and piston are both round and are 1.3 inches in diameter and0.13 inches thick (Farrell and Siciliano, 2007).A typical bundle of training chaff contains approximately five million fibers, each composed of glasssilicate with an aluminum coating. Aluminum and silicon comprise the most common minerals in theearth’s crust, aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3 ) and silicon dioxide (SiO 2 ). Since ocean waters are in constantexposure to crustal materials, there is little reason to believe that the addition of small amounts of chaffwould have any effect on either water or sediment composition (Hullar et al., 1999). Chaff is generallyresistant to chemical weathering and likely remains in the environment for long periods of time. As it ismuch like aluminosilicate minerals, the influence on the physical environment will be small, and likelylimited to settling with bottom geology (DoN, 2007).The physical environment may be affected by the leaching of metals from the chaff particles. However,the concentration of chaff needed to cause any kind of significant environmental impact far exceeds theamount that actually enters the water during air combat maneuvers. Sediment in the bottom of the oceanis composed of silicate minerals arising from various geomorphic processes. Minerals such as aluminumalso enter the water through hydrothermal vents and the geologic processes themselves. The ions that canbe leached from the chaff particles render such a small concentration in the at-sea environment (becauseof the large volume of water in comparison the actual number of chaff particles is so great) that theinfluence of aluminum ions entering the water is of smaller quantity than the processes that introducemetallic ions in the water naturally (DoN, 2007).The amount of chaff necessary to impact the environment is not realistically deposited during normalnaval training activities.3-57 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISFlaresChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesFlares are used to attract heat-seeking missiles and thus called self-protection flares. Self-protectionflares consist of a magnesium/Teflon formulation that, when ignited and released from an aircraft, burnfor a short period of time (less than 10 seconds) at very high temperatures. Flares release heat and light todisrupt tracking of Navy aircraft by enemy infrared tracking devices or weapons. Flares are designed toburn completely. Under normal operations, the only material that would enter the water would be a small,round plastic end-cap (approximately 1.4 inch diameter). The plastic end-caps would be distributedthroughout the OPAREA (W-72 and W-386), therefore the amount of debris is negligible and would notsubstantially affect water quality resources..Marine Markers (Smoke Floats)Marine markers are pyrotechnic devices dropped on the water’s surface. They are used in trainingexercises to mark a surface position on the ocean (refer to Section 3.2 for details). The chemical flame ofa marine marker burns like a flare but also produces smoke. Approximately 300 marine markers (smokefloats) would be expended during the No Action Alternative.Marine markers are composed of tin and contain red phosphorus pyrotechnic candles and seawateractivatedbatteries (The Ordnance Shop, 2007). In the aquatic environment, phosphorus will settle to thesea floor where it will react with the water to produce phosphoric acid, until all phosphorus is consumedby the reaction. Combustion of red phosphorus produces phosphorus oxides, which have a low toxicity toaquatic organisms. Due to the low usage of marine markers, the red phosphorus would have no effect onthe marine environment (DoN, 2006b).The Navy is currently preparing the Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training EIS/OEIS for the use ofmultiple sonar types in the East Coast and Gulf OPAREAs of the United States. Additional assessmentregarding the use of marine markers (smoke floats) in the VACAPES Range Complex is included in theAFAST EIS/OEIS. A summary of the AFAST EIS/OEIS is provided in Section 3.19, Summary of SonarEffects.Underwater DetonationsMost underwater detonations during VACAPES Range Complex operations would be associated withmine neutralization exercises. Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) detachments place explosive chargesnext to or on non-explosive practice mines. Charges used by EOD divers in the VACAPES RangeComplex consist of 20-lb explosives, and reflect the size of charges EOD divers use to detonate mines incombat or real-world conditions. Underwater explosions would also occur during SEAL platoon trainingexercises. Navy SEAL underwater demolitions and EOD operations would be conducted in the SurfaceDanger Zone, W-50C.Approximately 12 underwater detonations using 20-lb explosives would be conducted under the NoAction Alternative.The combustion products from the detonation of high explosives are commonly found in sea water –carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, water, nitrogen, and ammonia. The primary contaminantsthat would be released from explosives used in mine warfare training are nitroaromatic compounds suchas trinitrotoluene (TNT), cyclonite (Royal Demolition Explosive or RDX), and octogen (High MeltingExplosive or HMX) (URS et al., 2000)Initial concentrations of explosion by-products are not expected to be hazardous to marine life(DoN, 2001b) and would not accumulate in the training area because exercises are spread out over timeand chemicals rapidly disperse in the ocean. Therefore, no adverse effects from chemical by-productswould be expected.3-58 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesThe chemical products of underwater detonations are initially confined to a thin, circular area called thesurface pool. After the turbulence of the explosion has dispersed, the pool stabilizes and the chemicalproducts are diluted and become undetectable. The USEPA considers the contaminant levels releasedduring the sinking of a target to be within the standards of the Marine Protection, Research andSanctuaries Act (USEPA, 2007a).Small-scale underwater detonations, including development tests of underwater weapons, underwaterexplosive research testing, and shock survivability tests of shipboard equipment showed no significantenvironmental effects to the benthic environment, water quality, or marine biota of the global commons(DoN, 1992). Testing occurred 18 nm offshore from Key West, Florida, where the depth of the watercolumn ranged from approximately 1200 to 4,800 feet.Military training activities in the VACAPES Study Area, especially the use of live ordnance, are potentialsources of water quality pollutants. Some detonations occur within the 12 nm limit in W-50C where livefire is authorized; however, most of the underwater detonation operations in the VACAPES Study Areaoccur outside the 12 nm limit, and any potential impacts to water quality from combustion products arelocalized, temporary, and do not substantially affect water quality or resources in the Study Area.Therefore, the impact on water resources and water quality is less than significant in the No ActionAlternative.Water Quality in Chesapeake BayImpacts to water quality in the lower Chesapeake Bay would be attributable to using the MK-104, MK-105, and SPU-1W minesweeping systems in the nearshore environment resulting from minecountermeasure training. Mine Countermeasure exercises train forces to detect, identify, classify, mark,avoid, and disable (or verify destruction of) underwater mines using a variety of methods, including air,surface, sub-surface, and ground assets. A total of approximately 272 mine countermeasure exercises(sorties) would be conducted annually in the lower Chesapeake Bay under No Action Alternative.The MK-104 is a minesweeping system to counter acoustic influencing mines. It simulates the acousticsignature of a targeted vessel and causes the mine to self-detonate. The SPU-1W is a 30-foot magnetizedpipe used for mine sweeping in shallow water for magnetic influenced mines. The 1,000-lb pipe istransported by hanging from an MH-53E to and from the training area. Once at the training area, theaircrew deploy the system into the water to simulate a targeted vessel.The MK-105 is a minesweeping sled used to counter magnetic influencing mines. The sled is towedbehind an MH-53E. Behind the hydrofoil sled is a 450-foot buoyant magnetic cable with 150 feet ofelectrodes on either end of the cable. The electrodes create a magnetic field that causes magneticinfluenced mines to self detonate.Use of the MK-104, MK-105, or the SPU-1W minesweeping systems could alter conditions in bottomsediment of the lower Chesapeake Bay when the water column is shallow. As stated previously, theChesapeake Bay was listed as an impaired water body under the CWA due to excess sediment. Proposedoperations could have an impact due to towing the minesweeping systems through the water, which couldcause a temporary increase in turbidity and total suspended solids in the water column during andtemporarily after a training exercise.Although the portion of the Chesapeake Bay where these operations would occur lies within Virginiastate territorial waters, the potential sediment disturbance would not exceed state or federal water qualitystandards; thus, no significant impact on water quality is anticipated in the No Action Alternative.3-59 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water Resources3.3.3.2 Alternative 1VACAPES OPAREAVACAPES Range Complex training operations involving hazardous materials that have the potential toaffect water resources and water quality would increase by varying degrees from current levels underAlternative 1. Amounts of expended training materials would increase and decrease in rough proportionto the overall increases and decreases in these training operations.Under Alternative 1, annual use of materials in the VACAPES Study Area would increase over the NoAction Alternative approximately as follows: MK-103 sorties would increase from 176 to 200; AQS-24A sorties would increase from 480 to 530; AQS-20A sorties would increase from 430 to 660;Explosive Ordnance Explosive events would increase from 12 to 24.Under Alternative 1, new or modifiedmine warfare systems and ordnance would be introduced for the VACAPES Study Area, including:ALMDS, 100 sorties;AQS-20A 12 sorties associated with the DDG 91+ remote mine hunting system);AMNS 70 sorties, and 140 AMNS sorties with HE (30 rounds); andRAMICS, 100 sorties.RAMICS is a targeting, fire control, and gun system which fires inert, non-explosive rounds at a minemoored near the surface of the water. The associated system, ALMDS, uses the LIDAR laser systemfrom the MH-60S to identify the mine and direct RAMICS gun fire to destroy the mine.ALMDS/RAMICS systems would be deployed in W-50C.AMNS is a mine neutralization system deployed from an MH-53E (70 sorties) or MH-60S (140 sortiesusing approximately 30 rounds of 3.24 Lbs NEW HE) to neutralize mines identified by minehuntingsystems. The AMNS operator, controlling the system from the helicopter, uses the vehicle’s sonar toreacquire the target. Once acquired, the operator uses video to guide the target into a position for firing aself-contained shaped charge that neutralizes the mine. This system would be used in W-50C.Potential effects associated with the active sonar components of mine warfare activities are analyzedseparately in the AFAST EIS and summarized in Section 3.19 of this document. Military trainingactivities in the VACAPES Study Area, especially the use of HE ordnance, are potential sources of waterquality pollutants. Most of the underwater detonation operations in the VACAPES Study Area occuroutside the 12 nm limit, with the exception of training in W-50C. Any potential impacts to water qualityfrom combustion products are localized, temporary, and do not substantially affect water quality orresources in the Study Area. Therefore, the impact on water resources and water quality is less thansignificant under Alternative 1.Water Quality in Chesapeake BayAs described for the No Action Alternative, impacts to water quality in the lower Chesapeake Bay wouldbe attributable to using the MK-104, MK-105, and SPU-1W minesweeping systems in the nearshoreenvironment resulting from mine countermeasure training. For these systems, a total of approximately310 mine countermeasure exercises (sorties) would be conducted in Alternative 1 (compared to 272 forthe No Action Alternative). SPU-1W sorties would increase from 64 to 70; MK-104 sorties would increase from 104 to 120; and MK-105 sorties would increase from 104 to 120.3-60 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesUnder Alternative 1, an additional system would be introduced: 360 OASIS mine sweeping exercises(sorties). OASIS is a self-contained, high speed, shallow water magnetic and acoustic influence sweepingdevice. OASIS would be towed by an MH-60S helicopter. The mine sweeping system emulates themagnetic and acoustic signatures of transit platforms. Once in the training area, aircrew deploys thesystem into the water to simulate a targeted vessel. OASIS would not affect water quality via chemicalconstituents; however, could disturb the sediment since it is towed through the water. Use of the minesweeping systems could alter conditions in bottom sediment of the lower Chesapeake Bay when the watercolumn is shallow. As stated previously, the Chesapeake Bay was listed as an impaired water body underthe CWA due to excess sediment. Proposed operations could have an impact due to any of these systemsstreamed through the water, which could cause a temporary increase in turbidity and total suspendedsolids in the water column during and temporarily after a training exercise.Although the portion of the Chesapeake Bay where these operations would occur lies within Virginiastate territorial waters, the potential sediment disturbance would not exceed state or federal water qualitystandards; thus, no significant impact on water quality is anticipated under Alternative 1.3.3.3.3 Alternative 2VACAPES Range Complex training operations with potential impacts to water quality would increase byvarying degrees from current levels under Alternative 2. Amounts of expended training materials wouldincrease and decrease in rough proportion to the overall increases and decreases in these trainingoperations.As with Alternative 1, various new or modified mine countermeasure training areas are proposed as partof the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2). These include ALMDS, AQS-20A (platform changed fromMH-60S to remote mine hunting system), AMNS (and AMNS with HE), and RAMICS, and are the sametypes of new training introduced in Alternative 1.Under Alternative 2, use of materials in the VACAPES Study Area would be the same as Alternative 1except for the following: MK-103 sorties would be the same but would employ HE (0.002 Lbs NEW) under Alternative 2; AQS-24A sorties would increase from 480 sorties (No Action Alternative) to 550 sorties underAlternative 2;AQS-20A sorties would increase from 430 sorties (No Action Alternative) to 670 sorties underAlternative 2; ALMDS sorties would increase from 100 sorties (Alternative 1) to 110 sorties (Alternative 2); RAMICS sorties would increase from 100 sorties (Alternative 1) to 110 sorties (Alternative 2); and High Explosive bombs would be decreased from 344 bombs (No Action Alternative and Alternative 1)to 20 in W-386 and 121 bombs (No Action Alternative and Alternative 1) to zero bombs (Alternative2) in W-72.Military training activities in the VACAPES Study Area, especially the use of live ordnance, are potentialsources of water quality pollutants. Any potential impacts to water quality from combustion products arelocalized, temporary, and do not substantially affect water quality or resources in the Study Area. Basedon the analysis presented above, these pollutants would be released in quantities and at rates that wouldnot exceed any water quality standard or criteria, even given the reduction in at-sea BOMBEX eventsusing explosive ordnance proposed under this Alternative. Therefore, the impact on water resources andwater quality is less than significant, individually and in the aggregate, under the Preferred Alternative(Alternative 2).3-61 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISWater Quality in Chesapeake BayChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesImpacts to water quality in the lower Chesapeake Bay would be attributable to using the MK-104, MK-105, SPU-1W, and OASIS minesweeping systems resulting from mine countermeasure training and thedeployment and retrieval of simulated mines. A total of 680 mine countermeasure exercises (sorties)would be conducted in the lower Chesapeake Bay under Alternative 2.Under Alternative 2, the MK-105/SPU-1W training area would contain two 1 nm by 4 nm areaspopulated with Versatile Exercise Mines (VEM). VEM units would be deployed on Chesapeake Baybottom surface, which would be pre-surveyed to avoid shipping lanes, shipwrecks, artificial reefs andhard bottom surfaces. Twenty VEM systems would be deployed during mine countermeasure exerciseswithin the VACAPES Study Area (lower Chesapeake Bay) for Alternative 2. VEM units would beretrieved approximately every 90 days to service the units and download data. VEM units simulate mineshapes and no detonations would occur during this training.Use of the MK-104, MK-105, and SPU-1W minesweeping systems could alter conditions in bottomsediment of the lower Chesapeake Bay. As stated previously, the Chesapeake Bay was listed as animpaired water body under the CWA due to excess nutrients and sediment. Proposed operations wouldnot impact nutrient inputs to the Bay, but could have an impact due to VEM units being deployed andretrieved in this area (approximately every 90 days), which could cause a temporary increase in turbidityand total suspended solids in the water column.Under Alternative 2, OASIS sorties in the lower Chesapeake Bay would increase to 370 sorties annually(compared to 360 annual sorties under Alternative 1). The proposed OASIS range requires a depth of 40-150 feet within the Chesapeake Bay. Two 1 nm x 4 nm minefields with 20 VEMS units would beneeded. Since this system would be deployed using MH-60S helicopters, the range must be within 25 nmfor proper on-range training time. VEM units would be serviced approximately every 90 days todownload data.As stated previously, the Chesapeake Bay was listed as an impaired water body under the CWA due toexcess sediment. Proposed operations could have an impact on sediment. Proposed mine countermeasureoperations conducted in the Chesapeake Bay could potentially cause turbidity and total suspended solidsto increase due to towing the OASIS system through the water, as well as deployment/recovery of VEMunits. No detonations would occur in these training areas.Although the portion of the Chesapeake Bay where these operations would occur lies within Virginiastate territorial waters, the potential sediment disturbance would not be expected to exceed state or federalwater quality standards; thus, no significant impact on water quality in the lower Chesapeake Bay isanticipated under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2).3.3.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThe analysis presented above indicates that Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in unavoidablesignificant adverse effects to water resources and water quality; however, due to the sensitive estuarineenvironment and strict management of the Chesapeake Bay, special attention should be given tooperations conducted in this area. As stated previously, the Chesapeake Bay was listed as an impairedwater body under the CWA due to excess nutrients and sediment. Proposed operations would not impactnutrient inputs to the Bay, but could have an impact on sediment. Proposed mine countermeasureoperations conducted in the Chesapeake Bay could potentially cause turbidity and total suspended solidsto increase due to towing of minesweeping systems through the water, which could disturb sediment. Inaddition, the deployment and retrieval of VEM units on the Chesapeake Bay bottom surface could alsocause turbidity and total suspended solids to increase.3-62 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water Resources3.3.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)Training activities would introduce expended materials and potential water pollutants to the watercolumn. Based on the analysis presented above, however, these pollutants would be released in quantitiesand at rates that would not result in a violation of any water quality standard or criteria. Marine biotawould not be substantially affected. Accordingly, these impacts would be less than significant, bothindividually and in the aggregate.Table 3.3-4 provides a summary of water quality effects for the No-Action Alternative, Alternative 1, andAlternative 2. For purposes of analyzing such effects under both NEPA and EO 12114, the table allocateseffects on a jurisdictional basis (i.e., under NEPA for actions or effects within U.S. territory, and underEO 12114 for actions or effects outside U.S. territory).3-63 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.3 – Water ResourcesTABLE 3.3-4SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES IN THEVACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREAAlternative andStressorSummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionNEPA(U.S. Territorial Waters)Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)No ActionMilitary ExpendedMaterials (MEM)Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the ocean floor.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the ocean floor.Temporary, short-term, minor, and Temporary, short-term, minor, andlocalized changes to immediatelocalized changes to immediateUnderwatersurrounding water quality from potential surrounding water quality from potentialDetonations and Highreleases of munitions constituents from releases of munitions constituents fromExplosive Ordnanceexplosives and ordnance used during explosives and ordnance used duringtraining exercises.training exercises.Non-ExplosivePractice MunitionsLong-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the ocean floor.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the ocean floor.Mine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNegligible effects.Negligible effects.Impact Conclusion Less than significant impact. Less than significant harm.Alternative 1MEMLong-term, minor, and localizedLong-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the ocean floor. accumulation of MEM on the ocean floor.UnderwaterDetonations and HighExplosive OrdnanceTemporary, short-term, minor, andlocalized changes to immediatesurrounding water quality from potentialreleases of munitions constituents fromexplosives and ordnance used duringtraining exercises. Slight increasecompared to No Action.Temporary, short-term, minor, andlocalized changes to immediatesurrounding water quality from potentialreleases of munitions constituents fromexplosives and ordnance used duringtraining exercises. Slight increasecompared to No Action.Non-ExplosivePractice MunitionsLong-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the ocean floor.Slight increase compared to No Action.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the ocean floor.Slight increase compared to No Action.Mine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNegligible effects.Negligible effects.Impact Conclusion Less than significant impact Less than significant harm.Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)MEMLong-term, minor, and localizedLong-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the ocean floor. accumulation of MEM on the ocean floor.Temporary, short-term, minor, andTemporary, short-term, minor, andlocalized changes to immediatelocalized changes to immediatesurrounding water quality from potentialUnderwatersurrounding water quality from potentialreleases of munitions constituents fromDetonations and High releases of munitions constituents fromexplosives and ordnance used duringExplosive Ordnance explosives and ordnance used duringtraining exercises. A significant decreasetraining exercises. A slight increasecompared to No Action due to decrease incompared to No Action.HE bombs used in non-territorial waters.Non-ExplosivePractice MunitionsLong-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the ocean floor.Slight increase compared to No Action.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of MEM on the ocean floor.Slight increase compared to No Action.Mine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNegligible effects.Negligible effects.Impact Conclusion Less than significant impact Less than significant harm.3-64 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air Quality3.4 AIR QUALITY3.4.1 Introduction and MethodsAir quality in a location is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere,generally expressed in units of parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ); the sizeand topography of the air basin; and the prevailing meteorological conditions. The USEPA setsconcentration levels for specific pollutants of concern with respect to the health and welfare of the generalpublic.The six major pollutants of concern are: Carbon monoxide (CO); Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ); Nitrogen oxides (NO x ); Ozone (O 3 ); Suspended particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns (PM 10 ) or less, and 2.5 microns or less(PM 2.5 ); and Lead (Pb).The USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for these “criteriapollutants” that represent ambient concentrations considered protective of public health and welfare.Pollutant emissions typically refer to the amount of pollutants or pollutant precursors introduced into theatmosphere by a source or group of sources. Pollutant emissions contribute to the ambient airconcentrations of criteria pollutants, either by directly affecting the pollutant concentrations measured inthe ambient air or by interacting in the atmosphere to form criteria pollutants. Primary pollutants, such ascarbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and some particulates, are emitted directly into the atmosphere fromemission sources. Secondary pollutants, such as ozone, nitrogen oxides, and some particulates, areformed through atmospheric photochemical reactions that are influenced by meteorology, ultravioletlight, and other atmospheric processes.Wind direction determines the path of air pollutants from their source to any receptor. Wind speed andthe distance from the source determine the time it will take air pollutants to travel from source to receptor.At high wind speeds, the air experiences more turbulence and pollutants released near the ground willdisperse more rapidly. However, air pollutants emitted by elevated stack sources may be more rapidlytransported to the ground during high winds and can actually lead to higher ground-level pollutantconcentrations. At low wind speeds, pollutants emitted from sources near the ground, such as vehicleexhaust, will disperse at a slower rate.The combination of a strong temperature inversion and light winds may lead to a layer of cold, stagnantair near the ground. Pollutants emitted from low-level sources, such as vehicles, are trapped in this layerof air. A persistent temperature inversion over a long period of time may lead to increased concentrationsof air pollutants in the lower atmosphere from low-level sources.The region of air that extends from the earth's surface to the base of the temperature inversion is referredto as the mixing layer. This layer of air is relatively well mixed because of heating from the sun and fromhuman sources. The depth of the mixing layer defines the volume of air in which air pollutants can bemixed. The lower the depth of the mixing layer, the less volume is available to disperse air pollutants. Apersistent lack of a mixing layer or shallow mixing depth may lead to episodes of high pollutionconcentrations. The mixing layer is especially important in urban locations where large quantities ofpollutants are released near ground level.3-65 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air QualityGenerally, the air quality of the VACAPES Range Complex is very good. This conditions results fromthe relatively low number of air pollutant sources, size and topography of the VACAPES RangeComplex, and prevailing meteorological conditions.3.4.1.1 Regulatory FrameworkFederal Air Quality RequirementsThe USEPA is the agency responsible for enforcing the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and its1977 and 1990 amendments (42 U.S.C. Part 7401, et seq.). Activities under the CAA have included:Establishing the NAAQS;Classifying the attainment status of areas relative to the NAAQS;Developing schedules and strategies to meet the NAAQS; andRegulating emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics to protect public health and welfare.Under the CAA, states are allowed to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations, providedthey are at least as stringent as federal standards. Within the VACAPES Range Complex, implementationof the CAA is carried out by the:Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC);Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE);Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ); andNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR).The USEPA requires each state to prepare a state implementation plan (SIP) that describes how that statewill achieve compliance with the NAAQS. An SIP is a compilation of goals, strategies, schedules, andenforcement actions that will lead the state into compliance with all federal air quality standards. The airquality regulations promulgated under the CAA that are potentially applicable to the proposed actioninclude the NAAQS and General Conformity Rule.NAAQSThe CAA requires the USEPA to set primary and secondary NAAQS for the six pollutants consideredharmful to public health and the environment (40 CFR Part 50). These standards for each of the stateswithin the VACAPES Range Complex are presented in the NAAQS table in Appendix K. Primarystandards set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such asasthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, includingprotection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.General Conformity RuleSection 176(c)(1) of the CAA, the General Conformity Rule, requires federal agencies to ensure that theiractions conform to applicable implementation plans for achieving and maintaining the NAAQS forcriteria pollutants. To ensure compliance with the General Conformity Rule, a federal action must notcontribute to new violations of ambient air quality standards, increase the frequency or severity ofexisting violations, or delay timely state and/or regional attainment of standards.The USEPA rule implementing the conformity requirements, “Determining Conformity of GeneralFederal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans,” is codified in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. Part51, Subpart W contains the General Conformity Rule provisions that must be incorporated into SIPs,including the requirement that states revise the SIPs to include the conformity requirements. Once an SIPhas been revised and approved by the USEPA, the conformity requirements become federally enforceableand federal agencies are subject to the conformity requirements as they appear in the SIP. In cases wherea federal implementation plan (FIP) is in effect, federal actions must conform to its requirements. Each3-66 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air Qualityfederal agency taking an action subject to the General Conformity Rule must make a conformitydetermination (40 CFR 93.154).A conformity review, with documentation, must be completed for every Navy action that generates airemissions in nonattainment or maintenance (former nonattainment) areas. The conformity review can besatisfied by a determination that the action is not subject to the General Conformity Rule, a record of nonapplicability,or a conformity determination.In some cases, the Navy can make a determination that a proposed action is not subject to the GeneralConformity Rule. Actions not subject to the rule include:Actions that occur in attainment areas, and that do not generate emissions in nonattainment areas; orActions where the criteria pollutant emitted (or its precursors) is one for which the area is inattainment.If NEPA documentation is prepared for an action, the determination that the proposed action is notsubject to the General Conformity Rule is described in that documentation. Otherwise, no documentationis required. This EIS/OEIS includes the determination that all actions occurring in the attainment areas(that is, the coastal counties of Maryland and North Carolina) are not subject to the General ConformityRule. Actions occurring adjacent to coastal Delaware counties and Virginia counties are separatelyaddressed in a record of non-applicability.3.4.1.2 Assessment Methods and Data UsedThe method used in this EIS/OEIS to assess the air quality impacts associated with existing and proposedNavy training and testing within the VACAPES Range Complex included following the steps: Identify the federal and state air quality regulations that are applicable to the proposed action.Determine applicability of the General Conformity Rule. Define existing air quality and meteorological conditions in the range complex. Analyze the types of emissions sources associated with training and testing within the range complex. Review existing air quality assessments associated with individual Navy platforms and weaponssystems. Determine air quality impacts associated with existing Navy training and testing within the rangecomplex based on regulatory requirements. Determine air quality impacts that would result from the proposed increases in Navy training andtesting within the range complex.It was determined that air quality modeling or monitoring was not required for this analysis.3.4.1.3 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsThe warfare areas and emission sources (environmental stressors) associated with training in theVACAPES Range Complex are identified in Table 3.4-1. These sources will be analyzed in this sectionto determine their environmental consequences.These sources/stressors may be associated with the training platform, weapon system used in the exercise,and/or target or support craft. The table also identifies whether training exercises that produce emissionsoccur within and/or beyond 12 nautical miles (nm) from shore, and whether they take place below and/orabove 3,000 feet. Emissions above 3,000 feet would be above the atmospheric inversion layer and,therefore, would not affect local air quality.As shown in Table 3.4-1, most helicopter and small boat exercises take place closer to the shore, whileexercises involving fixed-wing aircraft and large ships take place at a greater distance from shore. This is3-67 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air Qualityimportant from an air quality perspective because defines which Navy exercise emission sources wouldcontribute to the air quality for human receptors. For example:GUNEX (surface-to-surface) exercises are always conducted at least 12 nm from shore. Emissionsassociated with GUNEX (surface-to-surface) would include minor amounts of cruiser or destroyerengine exhaust and gun barrel exhaust from firing the 5-inch guns. Even if the wind moved theseemissions toward the shore, they would be diluted to undetectable levels before they reached receptorsand would not have the potential to affect public health and welfare.Most helicopter flights in connection with Mine Countermeasures (MCM) exercises are within 3 nmof the shore and all occur below 3,000 feet. Helicopters conducting certain types of MCM exercisestow a practice sled through the water. Emissions associated with existing MCM events are from thehelicopter engines and sled hydrofoil engines. When these emissions occur near the shore, they havethe chance (depending on wind direction) to mix with the air breathed by life ashore. The emissionsfrom helicopters based at Naval Station Norfolk have been studied several times in previousenvironmental assessments and are shown to have a de minimis impact (i.e., the change in the levels ofNO X and VOCs caused by the action do not exceed 100 tons per year for each.) (DoN, 2002)Air quality criteria are set to protect the most susceptible sectors of the population such as children, theelderly, and people with asthma and breathing disorders.TABLE 3.4-1WARFARE AREAS AND ASSOCIATED AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORSStressorsLocationWarfare Area andOperationTraining AreasSurface VesselEmissionsHelicopterEmissionsFixed-WingAircraft EmissionsOrdnance orTarget EmissionsBelow 3,000 feetAbove 3,000 feetOverland or < 12nm from Shore> 12 nm fromShoreMine Warfare (MIW)Mine countermeasuresexercise (MCM)Mine countermeasuresexercise (MCM)Lower ChesapeakeBayW-50A/C, W-386, W-72 Mine neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare(SUW)Bombing exercise (airto-surface)(at sea)Missile exercise(MISSILEX) (air-tosurface)W-386 (Air-K),W-72A (Air-3B),W-72A/BW-386 (Air-K),W-72A 3-68 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air QualityTABLE 3.4-1WARFARE AREAS AND ASSOCIATED AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS(Continued)StressorsLocationWarfare Area andOperationTraining AreasSurface VesselEmissionsHelicopterEmissionsFixed-WingAircraft EmissionsOrdnance orTarget EmissionsBelow 3,000 feetAbove 3,000 feetOverland or < 12nm from Shore> 12 nm fromShoreGunnery exercise(GUNEX) (air-tosurface)GUNEX (surface-tosurface)boatGUNEX (surface-tosurface)shipLaser targetingVisit, Board, Search, andSeizure/MaritimeInterception Operations(VBSS/MIO)- ShipW-386 (Air-K), W-72A, W-72A (Air-1A), W-50C W-50C, R-6606 W-386, W-72 W-386 (Air-K),W-72A VACAPES OPAREA VBSS/MIO- Helo VACAPES OPAREA Air Warfare (AW)Air combat maneuver(ACM)W-72A,(Air-2A/B, 3A/B) GUNEX (air-to-air) W-72A W-386 (Air D, G, H,MISSILEX (air-to-air) K), W-72AGUNEX (surface-to-air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (surface-toair)Air intercept control(AIC)W-386(Air D, G, H, K) W-386, W-72 Detect to engage (DTE) W-386, W-72 Strike Warfare (STW)HARM missile exercise W-386 (Air E, F, I, J) 3-69 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air QualityTABLE 3.4-1WARFARE AREAS AND ASSOCIATED AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS(Continued)StressorsLocationWarfare Area andOperationTraining AreasSurface VesselEmissionsHelicopterEmissionsFixed-WingAircraft EmissionsOrdnance orTarget EmissionsBelow 3,000 feetAbove 3,000 feetOverland or < 12nm from Shore> 12 nm fromShoreAmphibious Warfare(AMW)Firing exercise (FIREX)with Integrated MaritimePortable AcousticScoring and SimulatorSystem (IMPASS)Electronic Combat(EC)W-386 (7C/D, 8C/D),W-72 (1C1/2)(preferred areas), W-386 (5C/D)(secondary areas ) W-386, W-386Chaff exercise- aircraft (Air-K), and W-72Chaff exercise- ship W-386 and W-72 Flare exercise- aircraftElectronic combat (EC)operations- aircraftW-386, W-386 (Air-K), and W-72 W-386 (Air-K) EC operations- ship VACAPES OPAREA Other TrainingShipboard ElectronicSystems EvaluationFacility (SESEF)utilizationVACAPES OPAREA 3.4.2 Affected EnvironmentMost of the VACAPES Range Complex assessed in this EIS/OEIS is offshore training sea space,undersea space, and special use airspace (SUA). For air quality purposes, most of area assessed consistsof the 28,672 nm 2 of SUA located above the VACAPES OPAREA (W-50, W-386, W-72, W-387, and W-110). This vast area begins 3 nm from shore, where state waters end. Emissions in these offshore areashave the potential to mix with air above nearby cities and counties in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, andNorth Carolina.Other smaller areas assessed for air quality impacts in this EIS/OEIS include: The restricted airspace (R-6606) between Naval Air Station Oceana Dam Neck Annex and W-50; and An area at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay north of Naval Amphibious Base (NAB) Little Creek andNaval Station Norfolk (420 nm 2 ).3-70 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air QualityEmissions in these areas will be analyzed for their potential to impact the air quality in adjacent Virginialocalities.3.4.2.1 Regional ClimateThe climate of the region plays an important role in determining air quality. The VACAPES RangeComplex climate is temperate. Because of the proximity to the coast, the humidity is generally high.Figure 3.4-1 is a graph of wind speeds at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on the Virginia eastern shore.This area is adjacent to the VACAPES Range Complex and the data are representative for the rangecomplex. As shown in the figure, the wind speed averages 8.7 miles per hour, but exceeds 10 mph inMarch and falls to 7 mph in July or August of the year. Because of its consistently strong winds, the areahas been recognized for its potential for offshore wind energy production. Figure 3.4-1 also indicates thegeneral wind direction over a year. Winter and spring months generally experience winds from anorthwesterly direction. Summer and autumn winds are from a generally southerly direction. Becausewinds occur from these directions and at these speeds, air is moved out of the region, which improves theair quality of the region by continuously refreshing the resource.Figure 3.4-1Regional Wind Direction and Wind SpeedSource: NASA 2003b3.4.2.2 Delaware Air QualityNew Castle County is part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE Air Quality Control Region(AQCR). Kent County and Sussex County are part of the Southern Delaware Intrastate AQCR (40 CFRPart 80.178). Figure 3.2-4 shows the AQCRs in the vicinity of the VACAPES Range Complex.The USEPA currently designates all three Delaware counties (Kent County, New Castle County, andSussex County) as “nonattainment” for the 8-hour ozone standard. New Castle County is also a“nonattainment” area for suspended particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM 2.5 ).Only Sussex County is close enough to the VACAPES Range Complex to be considered in thisEIS/OEIS. Sussex County borders the northern tip of the VACAPES OPAREA and W-386 (sub-regions3-71 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air QualityAir-A and Air-B) scheduled by Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC) VACAPES.Sussex County has been designated “in attainment,” pursuant to 40 CFR Part 81.308, for all criteriapollutants except 8-hour ozone. Sussex County has been designated a “moderate nonattainment” area for8-hour ozone.Delaware currently operates 10 air monitoring sites around the state. These sites measure meteorology,ground-level concentrations of criteria pollutants, air toxics, and other research-oriented parameters.3.4.2.3 Maryland Air QualityThe USEPA currently designates 11 cities/counties in Maryland as “nonattainment” for PM 2.5 . Thesecounties are Anne Arundel, Baltimore City, Baltimore, Carroll, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard,Montgomery, Prince Georges, and Washington (USEPA, 2007b). The large metropolitan areas ofMaryland (Baltimore and Washington) are also “nonattainment” for the 8-hour ozone standard. TheBaltimore metropolitan region, including the counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Baltimore City,Carroll, Harford, and Howard, is in “moderate nonattainment” for 8-hour ozone. The Washingtonmetropolitan region is designated as a “moderate nonattainment” area for 8-hour ozone by the USEPA.The Washington metropolitan region includes the Maryland counties of Calvert, Charles, Frederick,Montgomery, and Prince George's. Washington County, Maryland is designated as an Early ActionCompact area.None of the nonattainment areas are within the VACAPES Study Area, which is closest to the Marylandcounties of Worchester, Wicomico, and Somerset. As shown in Figure 3.4-2, these counties are part ofthe Eastern Shore Intrastate AQCR. Each of these Maryland counties bordering the VACAPES StudyArea has been designated as being “in attainment” for all criteria pollutants.Maryland currently operates 24 air monitoring sites around the state and measures meteorology, groundlevelconcentrations of criteria pollutants, air toxics, and other research-oriented parameters (MDE, 2007).No monitoring stations are located in the Maryland counties nearest the VACAPES Study Area.3.4.2.4 Virginia Air QualityPortions of the VACAPES Study Areas are within the state of Virginia. These include R-6606 andnearshore areas proposed for Mine Warfare (MIW) training. Proposed MIW training areas are locatedwithin the Hampton Roads Intrastate AQCR, which consists of numerous counties and cites. Theseinclude the following cities and counties that are close to the VACAPES Study Area: Isle of WightCounty, James City County, York County, City of Chesapeake, City of Hampton, City of Norfolk, City ofVirginia Beach, City of Newport News, City of Poquoson, City of Williamsburg, City of Portsmouth,City of Hampton, and City of Suffolk. The Hampton Roads Intrastate AQCR has eight air qualitymonitoring sites.Air quality in the Hampton Roads Intrastate AQCR has improved in recent years so that it now meets thefederal air quality standard that protects people’s health from ozone pollution (VDEQ, 2007). Accordingto USEPA air quality records, the Hampton Roads Intrastate AQCR was in “marginal nonattainment” for8-hour ozone during the years 2004, 2005, and 2006. This region was re-designated to “in attainment” asof July 1, 2007 (USEPA, 2007b). This re-designation to “in attainment” by the USEPA includes theagency’s approval of an air quality maintenance plan submitted by the VDEQ that shows how theHampton Roads Intrastate AQCR will keep ozone levels low through 2018.The study area is also adjacent to the Virginia eastern shore counties of Northampton and Accomack, andto Matthews and Gloucester Counties on the western side of the Chesapeake Bay. As shown in Figure3.4-2, these counties are part of the Northeastern Virginia Intrastate AQCR (40 CFR Part 81.144).3-72 March 2009

79°W78°W77°W76°W75°W40°NPennsylvania40°NNew JerseyWest Virginia39°NMarylandDistrict of ColumbiaDelawareAtlantic CityOPAREA39°NSussexWicomicoWorcesterSomerset38°N38°NVirginiaAccomackGloucesterMatthewsNorthamptonYorkVACAPES OPAREA37°NWilliamsburgNewportNewsPoquosonHamptonPortsmouth37°NNorfolkVirginiaBeachSuffolkChesapeakeCurrituck36°N36°NDareNorth Carolina35°NCherry PointOPAREA35°N79°W78°W77°W76°W75°WPANYNJCNLegendVACAPES OPAREAAir Quality Control RegionsFigure 3.4-2WVSCAMDVANCDECounty BoundariesSouthern Delaware IntrastateEastern ShoreNorthern Coastal Plain IntrastateNortheastern Virginia IntrastateHampton Roads Intrastate0 12.5 25 50 75 100Nautical MilesAir QualityControl RegionsVACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-73

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air QualityThese Virginia counties bordering the study area have been designated as “in attainment,” pursuant to 40CFR Part 81.347, for all criteria pollutants.3.4.2.5 North Carolina Air QualityThe VACAPES Study Area includes offshore waters adjacent to portions of North Carolina. The nearestNorth Carolina counties to the study area are Dare County and Currituck County. As shown in Figure3.4-2, these counties are part of the Northern Coastal Plain Intrastate AQCR (40 CFR Part 81.149). Bothof these North Carolina counties have been designated as being “in attainment,” pursuant to 40 CFR Part81.334, for all criteria pollutants.North Carolina has 122 air quality monitoring stations throughout the state (USEPA, 2007c). None arelocated in the counties bordering the study area.3.4.3 Environmental Consequences:The evaluation of potential air quality impacts includes two separate analyses. Effects of air pollutant emissions from VACAPES Range Complex operations occurring within U.S.territory (within 12 nm of the coastline) are assessed under NEPA. Effects of air pollutant emissions from VACAPES Range Complex operations occurring outside U.S.Territory are assessed under EO 12114.For the NEPA analysis, all operations involving the use of aircraft and vessels at or below 3,000 feet inareas within U.S. territorial waters were included. This included, for example, operations within R-6606and MIW operations at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. For the EO 12114 analysis, only those trainingoperations that occur outside U.S. territorial waters at or below 3,000 feet were considered.The NEPA analysis involved evaluating emissions generated from the proposed activities and assessingpotential impacts on air quality, including an evaluation of potential exposures to toxic air pollutantemissions. Trace amounts of air toxics emissions would be generated from combustion sources and useof ordnance and include hazardous air pollutants not covered under the NAAQS. In particular, thesewould include rocket motor exhaust and unspent missile fuel vapors. These emissions would be minorand would not result in significant impacts because of the distance from humans that could be affected byair toxics and the low levels of emissions.The NEPA analysis does not include a CAA General Conformity Rule determination because theMaryland and North Carolina AQCRs that are adjacent to the study area have all been designated “inattainment,” pursuant to 40 CFR 81.334, for all criteria pollutants. Furthermore, as explained in moredetail later, a record of non-applicability (RONA) has been produced for air emissions bordering thestates of Delaware and Hampton Roads, Virginia. The General Conformity Rule is satisfied by each ofthese determinations and a conformity determination is not otherwise necessary.Surface Ship EmissionsMarine vessel traffic in the VACAPES OPAREA includes military ship and boat traffic, includingsupport vessels providing services for military training exercises and tests. Numerous non-militarycommercial vessels and recreational vessels also are present within the VACAPES OPAREA. Thesevessels were not evaluated in the air quality analysis because they are not part of the Navy’s action.Evaluating marine vessel emissions typically involves examining, for each type of vessel, its type ofoperation, number of hours of operation, type of propulsion engine, and type of generator used onboard.For Alternatives 1 and 2, operational estimates of future ship use percentages were obtained based onevolutionary changes in the Navy force structure and mission assignments. Where there were no majorchanges in types of ships, future operations estimates were based on the percentage distribution of3-74 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air Qualityhistorical operations. Detailed estimates of operations for baseline operations and future operations wereobtained based on discussions with fleet subject matter experts (SME).Because no time is spent by surface ships within a nonattainment AQCR, there was no need to investigatethe time spent within particular locations, at what power level, or the path taken by vessels within therange complex.As presented in Table 3.4-1, only a few training events, including mine neutralization and GUNEX(surface-to-surface) boat, primarily involve surface craft operations within 12 nm of the shoreline. Bothevents produce only minor amounts of small boat engine emissions off the coast of Virginia. Othertraining events may also have support craft involvement, such as target retrieval for MISSILEX (air-toair)or MISSILEX (surface-to-air). These also would produce insignificant air quality impacts. MostNavy training events involving surface ships are projected to remain similar to the No Action Alternativeunder either action alternative. Associated ship engine emissions are, thus, expected to remain relativelyconstant among the alternatives.Aircraft EmissionsEvaluating aircraft emissions involves evaluating, for each aircraft type, its type of operations, number ofhours of operation, type of engine, and mode of operation. Aircraft emit the following CAA criteriapollutants: NO x , CO, SO 2 , and PM 10. They also emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which areprecursors to the NAAQS criteria pollutant, ozone.Emissions occurring above 3,000 feet are usually above the mixing layer, which is capped by theatmospheric inversion. Therefore, these emissions would not have any effect on local air quality. Flightsby fixed-wing aircraft usually originate from onshore air stations, including Naval Air Station Oceana orNaval Air Station Patuxent River, but some originate from aircraft carriers offshore. It was assumed thatall fixed-wing aircraft would be traveling from their home base to the VACAPES Range Complex SUAat an elevation above 3,000 feet, and that transit to and from the range would, therefore, not affect localair quality.Fixed-wing fighter aircraft flights originating from the Naval Air Station Oceana (a primary user of theVACAPES Range Complex) were previously evaluated for air quality impacts in the final EIS for theintroduction of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets to the east coast of the U.S. (DoN, 2003). According tothat final EIS, the introduction of Super Hornet squadrons to Naval Air Station Oceana and transitioningof the Tomcat squadrons and some of the Hornet squadrons currently stationed there, would impact thestation’s total emissions under each of the siting alternatives. However, as noted in the final EIS, theprojected annual emissions during the transition years (2000 through 2010) under Alternative 1 (theworst-case scenario with all 10 fleet squadrons and one fleet replacement squadron (FRS) located atNaval Air Station Oceana) would not be above the de minimis threshold defined in the GeneralConformity Rule. This final EIS is incorporated by reference into this VACAPES Range ComplexEIS/OEIS.Helicopter emissions were evaluated in the EA for the homebasing of the MH-60R/S on the east coast ofthe United States (DoN, 2002). The proposed action, described under Alternative 1 in the EA, wouldeventually result in an increase of 63 aircraft at Naval Station Norfolk. The time frame analyzed issimilar to the time frame analyzed in this EIS/OEIS. Ozone and its precursor compounds NO x and VOCswere of concern in the Homebasing EA because, as discussed in Section 3.4.2.4, the Hampton RoadsIntrastate AQCR that includes this installation has only recently achieved an “in attainment” designationfor ozone and must conform to an air quality maintenance plan. The results of the air emissions analysisin the EA, which are shown in Table 3.4-2, determined that air emission changes to both NO x and VOCtotals were below the de minimis thresholds of 100 tons per year (tpy) for impacts requiring evaluation3-75 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air Qualityunder the General Conformity Rule. The EA included a RONA as an appendix. This EA is incorporatedby reference into this VACAPES Range Complex EIS/OEIS and the conclusions are included in theRONA for this EIS/OEIS attached as Appendix L.TABLE 3.4-2AIR EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR MH-60S HOMEBASINGAT NAVAL STATION NORFOLK a/Net Change to Air Emissions at Naval Station Norfolk: 2002 to 2015Source VOC b/ NO x CO SO 2 PM 10Helicopter operations -7.98 34.72 29.07 2.26 20.61Helicopter maintenance run-ups -0.34 5.00 5.49 0.31 2.66Total net change -8.32 39.72 34.56 2.57 23.27a/ Source: DoN 2002.b/ VOC = Volatile organic compound; NO x = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO 2 = sulfur dioxide; PM 10 =Particulate matter (diameter of 10 microns or less).The foregoing two environmental studies are mentioned here because they account for most of the Navyaircraft operating in the VACAPES Range Complex 7 .MH-60S aircraft typically conduct their training events closer to shore than fixed-wing aircraft. This isshown in Table 3.4-1. Many of the increased training events evaluated in this EIS/OEIS, includingMCM, mine neutralization, GUNEX (air-to-surface), and MISSILEX (air-to-surface), are conducted bythe MH-60S. These events will be conducted off the coast of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.The de minimis emission levels mentioned in the 2002 EA, coupled with the current attainment status ofthe adjacent AQCRs, result in the conclusion of no significant impact on air quality.Fixed-wing aircraft primarily conduct training operations in areas of the VACAPES Range Complexbeyond the 12 nm U.S. territorial limits. Air quality may be temporarily affected in locations where ahigh number of aircraft simultaneously engage in practice operations, but such consequence would be oflimited duration and emissions would quickly disperse. Significant impacts to air quality beyond the U.S.territorial limits also are not expected because of the high altitude of fixed-wing training operations(above 3,000 feet). Such high-altitude aircraft emissions are associated with training events, including:ACM, MISSILEX (air-to-air), GUNEX (air-to-air), MISSILEX (air-to-surface), and BOMBEX (air-tosurface).Commercial air services (CAS) aircraft participate in Electronic Combat (EC), Air Intercept Control(AIC), GUNEX (S-A), GUNEX (A-A), and Detect-to-Engage (DTE) training events. CAS aircraft willbe operated primarily above the 3,000 foot atmospheric inversion layer. Emissions from CAS aircraft aresimilar to Navy fixed-wing aircraft. As mentioned in Chapter 2, CAS aircraft displace Navy fixed-wingaircraft used in such CAS supported events and thus do not add to overall event emissions.Aircraft operating in the VACAPES Range Complex SUA generally have reciprocating, turboprop, or jetengines. Most of these aircraft use JP-5 or JP-8 as a standard fuel. Emissions of concern are primarilyhydrocarbons that disperse readily in the atmosphere. A portion of those emissions may be VOCs, whichcan be associated with the generation of ground-level ozone. However, the volume of aircraft operationsin the VACAPES Range Complex SUA is relatively small, and adjacent areas of Maryland, Virginia, andNorth Carolina are “in attainment” areas for ozone. Therefore, emissions related to aircraft training7 The United States Air Force (USAF) also uses the VACAPES Range Complex SUA. The USAF evaluated theiruse of the VACAPES SUA in an EIS for the F-22 beddown at Langley AFB, Virginia and concluded that USAFaircraft impacts to air quality would not be significant (USAF, 2001).3-76 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air Qualityactivities in the VACAPES Range Complex SUA are not anticipated to have an adverse impact on thestudy area environment.The northernmost SUA in the VACAPES Range Complex borders on the state of Delaware. Asmentioned earlier, Sussex County, Delaware is “nonattainment” for the 8-hour ozone standard.Therefore, unlike in Maryland and North Carolina, the General Conformity Rule applies. The requiredconformity review is satisfied, however, by a RONA, which is attached to this EIS/OEIS in Appendix L.As explained in the RONA, the Navy conducts test track flights in W-386 areas Air-A and Air-B,adjoining Sussex County, Delaware (Casey, 2007). These flights are conducted at altitudes greater than6,000 feet above mean sea level (Casey, 2007). According to USEPA guidelines, emissions released intothe atmosphere above the inversion base for pollutant containment, commonly referred to as the “mixingheight” (generally 3,000 feet above ground level), do not have an effect on pollution concentrations atground level (USEPA, 1992). Furthermore, Navy training and testing within W-386 areas Air-A andAir-B are not expected to increase under the proposed action. Therefore, as stated in the RONA, theproposed Navy training and testing in the VACAPES Range Complex conforms to the Delaware SIP.The USAF recently calculated the aircraft emissions for the offshore SUA that would be expected in2007. Table 3.4-3 presents the estimated 2007 emissions data for the three most frequently usedVACAPES warning areas, W-72, W-386, and W-387. The estimates include commercial, U.S. CoastGuard (USCG), USAF, and Navy aircraft emissions as the airspace is utilized by multiple entities.TABLE 3.4-3ESTIMATED AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS IN 2007WITHIN THE OFFSHORE VACAPES SPECIAL USE AIRSPACEAircraftAnnual % Time below Approximate Emissions (tons per year)Sorties Mixing Height CO b/ VOCs NO x SO 2 PM 10W-72 SortiesCommercial (B737) 947 0 0 0 0 0 0USCG c/ (assume C-130) 79 80 0.66 0.13 3.56 0.01 0.25KC-130 4 80 0.03 0.006 0.18 .0007 0.01Adversary (assume F-18) 2,287 17 2.23 0.18 38.9 0.07 1.08F-18 13,277 17 12.9 1.03 226 0.40 6.3F-14 9,296 11 7.94 0.34 63 0.17 1.11F-16 758 17 0.12 0.10 10.8 0.02 0.04F-22 3,706 5 0.77 0.29 31.2 0.05 0.11P-3 2,975 80 12.4 2.38 67.1 0.25 4.78Total 33,329 ---- 37.0 4.4 440.1 1.0 13.7W-387 SortiesCommercial (B737) 131 0 0 0 0 0 0USCG (assume C-130) 9 80 0.04 0.0007 0.20 0.0007 0.01F-18 116 17 0.08 0.006 1.31 0.002 0.04F-14 270 11 0.15 0.007 1.22 0.003 0.02F-16 116 17 0.01 0.01 1.11 0.002 0.004F-22 430 0 0 0 0 0 0P-3 131 17 0.08 0.01 0.42 0.002 0.03Total 1,203 ---- 0.4 0.03 4.3 0.01 0.13-77 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air QualityTABLE 3.4-3ESTIMATED AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS IN 2007WITHIN THE OFFSHORE VACAPES SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE (Continued)AircraftAnnual % Time below Approximate Emissions (tons per year)Sorties Mixing Height CO b/ VOCs NO x SO 2 PM 10W-386 SortiesCommercial (B737) 951 0 0 0 0 0 0USCG (assume C-130) 43 80 0.36 0.07 1.94 0.0007 0.14F-18 865 17 0.98 0.08 17.1 0.03 0.48F-14 1,990 11 1.98 0.08 15.7 0.04 0.28F-16 847 17 0.16 0.13 14.1 0.02 0.05F-22 5,512 5 1.33 0.50 54.1 0.08 0.18P-3 979 17 1.01 0.19 5.47 0.02 0.39Total 11,187 ---- 5.8 1.0 108.4 0.2 1.5a/ Source: USAF, 2001.b/ VOC = CO = Carbon monoxide; volatile organic compound; NO x = nitrogen oxides; SO 2 = sulfur dioxide; PM 10 =Particulate matter (diameter of 10 microns or less).c/ USCG = United States Coast Guard.As shown in the table, sortie operations in the VACAPES Range Complex Warning Areas arepredominantly above the mixing layer, and associated emissions within the mixing layer are low.Emission concentrations associated with aircraft operations are minimal, considering the large size of theairspace units. Because these emissions are dispersed over more than 24 million acres of SUA, they donot measurably affect air quality. Thus, impacts to the air quality of the global commons is not expected.Emissions from Weapons and ExplosivesOther common chemical emissions associated with Navy training are explosive compounds and oxidationproducts. Oxides of carbon, nitrogen, and water are formed during this process, which reduces thelikelihood of parent chemicals (trinitrotoluene [TNT] and cyclonite [RDX]) entering surroundingenvironments. Other nitroaromatic compounds such as octogen (HMX), tetryl, and picric acid (used infuzes and primers) produce the same reactions.Practice ordnance does not carry an explosive charge; it carries only a smoke or marking charge and, thus,the incidence of emission particles is negligible (DoN, 2007). The detonation of the marking charge or ofthe explosive bomb consumes approximately 98 to 99 percent of the explosive component. The one totwo percent of explosive component not consumed is generally dispersed, with most falling to the waterin the immediate vicinity of the blast and the balance being dispersed in the air, where it is subject todilution by wind currents and weather conditions.Many of the smokes and fumes given off by pyrotechnics and screening devices are nontoxic and onlymildly irritating to the eyes and nasal passages when encountered in relatively light concentrations out-ofdoors.However, heavy concentrations in closely confined spaces are dangerous and may be lethalbecause they reduce the amount of oxygen in the air (NAVSEA, 1996). Because smoke floats and flaresare used infrequently, out-of-doors, and at great distances from land, associated air emissions would benon-toxic to residents in the VACAPES Range Complex.Air emissions from an Army Hellfire missile launch, helicopter motor combustion, and warheaddetonation were calculated in the Life Cycle Environmental Assessment for Hellfire Modular MissileSystem, August 1994 (Department of the Army, 1994). The highest percentage (by weight) of motorcombustion and warhead detonation products consists of nitrogen, water, carbon dioxide, carbonmonoxide, elemental carbon, and ammonia at totals between 95 percent (motor combustion) to99.51 percent (warhead detonation). Air emissions that make up the additional 0.49 percent to 4.1 percentare from aluminum oxide, lead, hydrogen cyanide, ethane, hydrogen, and methane. Because of the low3-78 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air Qualityconcentrations and rapid dispersal of Hellfire combustion and detonation products, it was determined thatHellfire testing would have no significant impact on air quality (Department of the Army, 1994). Othermissiles used in the VACAPES Range Complex are expected to have similarly negligible impacts onregional air quality.Underwater detonations (UNDET) associated with EOD mine neutralization training utilize C4, whichconsists of RDX plus a small amount of polyisobutylene binder. The principal explosive byproducts arewater, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Underwater explosions create a cavityfilled with high-pressure gas, which pushes the water out radially against the opposing externalhydrostatic pressure. At the instant of explosion, a certain amount of gas is instantaneously generated athigh pressure and temperature, creating a bubble. In addition, the heat causes a certain amount of waterto vaporize, adding to the volume of the bubble. This action immediately begins to force the water incontact with the blast front in an outward direction. It is estimated that 90 percent of the gaseousexplosion products would become airborne (DoN, 2001). Airborne explosion products are assumed tostabilize in a spherical form and move downwind, with concentrations remaining for the first 100 feet.This “cloud” would not be visible. Then, the airborne cloud would continue to move at the speed of thewind and become diluted and dispersed by atmospheric turbulence (DoN, 2001). The UNDET explosivebyproducts are not expected to significantly impact the regional air quality. The proposed new mineneutralization systems, including the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) and Rapid AirborneMine Clearance System (RAMICS), do not have air emissions associated with their use, other than thehelicopter platforms used to deploy them.The WFF launches between five and ten BQM-34 and the same number of BQM-74 drone targets peryear (NASA, 2005). WFF also launches approximately 20 AQM-37 (Coyote) drone targets per year(NASA, 2005). The AQM-37 launches were assessed by NASA in the Final Environmental Assessmentfor AQM-37 Operations at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space FlightCenter Wallops Flight Facility (NASA, 2003a). VC-6 launches approximately 50 BQM-74 drone targetsper year from the Naval Air Station Oceana Dam Neck Annex. Combustion products from AQM-37,BQM-74, and BQM-34 target launches are predominantly aluminum oxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogenchloride, water, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen (NASA, 2003a). Table 3.4-4 details the airquality guidelines for exposure to these products. The combustion of fuel and self-contained oxidizersproduces emissions in accordance with National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)guidelines. Under normal launch conditions, these emissions are distributed along the flight vehicletrajectory.TABLE 3.4-4AIR QUALITY GUIDELINES FOR EXPOSURE TO ROCKET EXHAUST A/Combustion Product CAS No. b/ TWA mg/m³ Ceiling mg/m³ PEL mg/m³Aluminum oxide (as aluminum) 1344-28-1 - - 15 (total)Chlorine 7782-50-5 - 1.45 3Hydrochloric acid 7647-01-0 - 7 7Lead, inorganic dusts and fumes (as lead) 7439-92-1 0.050 - 0.050a/ Source: NASA, 2003a.b/ Abbreviations: CAS No. = Chemical Abstract System number; TWA = time-weighted average; Ceiling = Ceiling Limit;PEL = Permissible Exposure Limit; mg/m 3 = Milligrams per cubic meter.The air quality impacts of chaff were evaluated by the USAF in Environmental Effects of Self-ProtectionChaff and Flares (USAF, 1997). The study concluded that most chaff fibers maintain their integrity afterejection. Although some fibers are likely to fracture during ejection, it appears that this does not result inthe release of particulate matter. Although not significant, tests indicated that the explosive charge in the3-79 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air Qualityimpulse cartridge results in minimal releases of particulate matter. Therefore, it appears that chaffdeployment would not result in an exceedence of the NAAQS (USAF, 1997). Chaff exercises in theVACAPES Range Complex are conducted relatively infrequently, and they are always conducted beyond12 nm from shore. These conditions further reduce any potential for impacts to NAAQS.The volume of emissions from ordnance and explosives has a minimal impact on regional air quality. Inconformance with NEPA evaluation procedures, no significant impact is expected to the regional airquality and, under EO 12114, no significant harm is expected to the air quality of the global commons.3.4.3.1 No Action AlternativeThe No Action Alternative consists of maintaining the current levels of training and testing in theVACAPES Range Complex. Thus, there would be no change in current levels of emissions associatedwith training or testing operations.The primary source of air emissions under the No Action Alternative is fixed-wing aircraft emissions.These emissions are primarily associated with ACM and EC training sorties. These sorties occur above3,000 feet in altitude and beyond 12 nm from shore. Emissions are dispersed over the vast expanse ofSUA airspace. Because of these factors, such emission would not have a discernable effect on study areaair quality.The cities and counties in Maryland and North Carolina adjoining the range complex are currentlydesignated “in attainment” for all criteria pollutants. This reflects good regional air quality. Includedwithin this characterization of regional air quality are the existing emissions from Navy aircraft, surfaceship, target, and weapons. A continuation of baseline training and testing levels adjacent to the coastalcounties in Maryland and North Carolina would not be subject to the General Conformity Rule becausethe training occurs in or adjacent to locations designated as attainment areas for all criteria pollutants.Training and testing adjacent to Sussex County, Delaware (a nonattainment area) occurs above 6,000 feetand would not affect pollutant concentrations at the ground level. A RONA is included in Appendix L.Therefore, there would be no significant impact to air quality from implementing the No ActionAlternative.Training and testing adjacent to Hampton Roads, Virginia cities and counties (attainment area with amaintenance plan) is conducted primarily by the MH-60S helicopters. The 2002 Homebasing EA for theMH-60S helicopter thoroughly examined the air quality impacts associated with the helicopter emissionsthrough 2015 (DoN, 2002). The EA concluded that emissions were below de minimis levels for impactsrequiring evaluation under the General Conformity Rule and a RONA was included with the EA. Thissame conclusion is reiterated here in Appendix L. Therefore, there would be no significant impact to airquality from implementing the No Action Alternative.The offshore reaches of the VACAPES OPAREA (beyond 12 nm) are not classified for priority pollutantsunder the CAA. Therefore, a CAA general conformity review is not applicable. Initial concentrations ofair emissions over the ocean would disperse rapidly in the atmosphere. Because of the low initialconcentrations and rapid dispersion of exhaust and explosion byproducts, there would not be any risk tohuman health and welfare. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts (NEPA) and no significantharm (EO 12114) to air quality from implementing the No Action Alternative.3.4.3.2 Alternative 1Under Alternative 1, there would be a minor increase in air pollutant emissions within the study area. TheCAA General Conformity Rule would not apply to the actions conducted in the study area offshore fromMaryland or North Carolina (those areas within the 3-nm jurisdiction of the CAA), because the countiesin these states are designated “in attainment” for all criteria pollutants. Flights located in W-386 near3-80 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air QualityDelaware (where counties are designated “nonattainment” for the 8-hour ozone standard) would occurabove 6,000 feet and would not affect pollutant concentrations at the ground level. Expected increases inhelicopter emissions associated with MH-60S helicopter training were determined to be below de minimislevels for impacts requiring evaluation under the General Conformity Rule.The air quality impacts from surge level operations would be primarily from aircraft, target and missileemissions, and associated mobile source emissions from support craft. These impacts would be minor,dispersed, and short-term in nature. Most of these training events would take place above 3,000 feet. Airemissions above 3,000 feet are not addressed in accordance with USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1992). Mostof the training events also would occur beyond 12 nm from shore, which would substantially reduce thelikelihood that any of the associated emissions would mix with over-land airsheds.CAS usage would increase under Alternative 1 over current levels. Ninety-three additional sorties areproposed in connection with CAS supported events (i.e., EC, AIC, DTE, and GUNEX (S-A) and GUNEX(A-A)) under Alternative 1. CAS supported events would occur primarily above 3,000 feet and more than12 nm from the shore. Thus, no significant impacts to air quality are expected from CAS flights or CASsupported events.Under Alternative 1, there would most notably be an increase in helicopter operations associated with thesiting of MH-60S at Naval Station Norfolk. Training events involving these helicopters include MCM,mine neutralization, GUNEX (air-to-surface), MISSILEX (air-to-surface), laser targeting, chaff exercise,and flare exercises. Although these particular training events were not analyzed in the MH-60R/SHomebasing EA (DoN, 2002), the air emissions of the helicopters were thoroughly evaluated in that EA,which is incorporated here by reference.According to the Homebasing EA, the addition of air emissions under the proposed action in theHomebasing EA were below the de minimis thresholds of 100 tpy for NO x and VOCs, as required in theSIP for Naval Station Norfolk. The MH-60 R/S Homebasing EA concluded that the proposed action (tobase all MH-60S helicopters at Naval Station Norfolk) was exempt from the requirement conformityanalysis under the General Conformity Rule and was presumed to conform to the Virginia SIP. At thetime of this Homebasing EA, the Hampton Roads Intrastate AQCR in Virginia was under a maintenanceplan for the control of ozone through the control of the ozone precursor compounds, NO x and VOCs. Asof July 2007, the Hampton Roads AQCR has been designated “in attainment” for all criteria pollutants.Despite the re-designation, it still has an 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, which supersedes the earlier 1-hour ozone plan. A RONA is included in Appendix L.Other VACAPES Range Complex training events evaluated under Alternative 1 are expected to increasemoderately. Such events include surface ship emissions in connection with GUNEX (surface-to-surface),GUNEX (surface-to-air), chaff exercises, and EC. These events would occur infrequently, and typicallywould be more than 12 nm from shore. In an EO 12114 evaluation, surface ship emissions and associatedordnance emissions are not expected to measurably impact the air quality of the global commons.Under Alternative 1, fixed-wing aircraft emissions are expected to increase in SUA outside the nation’sterritorial limits. The associated events include EC, ACM, laser targeting, BOMBEX (air-to-surface),MISSILEX (air-to-air), and GUNEX (air-to-air). These events would occur above the mixing layer andwould not affect study area air quality.In conclusion, the actions evaluated under Alternative 1 would not result in detectable changes to airquality. This would occur because the emission-producing activities associated with this alternativegenerally take place within:Areas designated “in attainment” (Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia Eastern Shore) for allcriteria pollutants and, therefore, where the CAA General Conformity Rule does not apply.3-81 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air Quality An area designated “in attainment” with a maintenance plan (Hampton Roads, Virginia AQCR) for allcriteria pollutants, but would involve helicopter emissions determined to be below de minimis levelsfor impacts requiring evaluation under the General Conformity Rule. Pursuant to this conformityreview, a RONA has been drafted and is included with this EIS/OEIS. An area designated “nonattainment” (Delaware) for 8-hour ozone, but would involve the production ofno additional emissions above No Action Alternative levels, and no emissions that would mix withground-level concentrations. Pursuant to this conformity review, a RONA has been drafted and isincluded with this EIS/OEIS. Offshore areas unclassified for priority pollutants, where surface ship emissions are minimal andfixed-wing aircraft typically produce emissions above the mixing layer.Therefore, under NEPA, there would be no significant impact to air quality from implementingAlternative 1. Under EO 12114, there would be no significant harm to the air quality over non-territorialwaters from implementing Alternative 1.3.4.3.3 Alternative 2 –(Preferred Alternative)Under Alternative 2, there would be a minor increase in air pollutants within the EIS/OEIS study areaover No Action Alternative levels. Emissions expectations under Alternative 2 would be nearly identicalto those under Alternative 1. For example, CAS flights and CAS supported events would have the sameemissions under Alternative 2 and stated in Alternative 1. However, under Alternative 2, there would bea further slight increase in helicopter emissions associated with new system MCM and mineneutralization training. Approximately 50 additional helicopter flights would take place each year underAlternative 2 versus Alternative 1. The associated helicopter emissions would take place within oradjacent to attainment areas off the coast of Virginia. These emissions impacts would be minor,dispersed, and short-term in nature.MH-60S emissions have been shown to have an insignificant impact on regional air quality (DoN, 2002).The small increase in annual helicopter emissions under Alternative 2 would be offset by a reduction inthe amount of fixed-wing aircraft emissions associated with BOMBEX (air-to-surface) training. UnderAlternative 2, there would be approximately 60 fewer BOMBEX (air-to-surface) events (roughly 120sorties) per year than No Action Alternative levels.As with Alternative 1, the emission-producing activities evaluated under Alternative 2 take place within: Areas designated “in attainment” (Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia Eastern Shore) for allcriteria pollutants and, therefore, where the CAA General Conformity Rule does not apply. An area designated “in attainment” with a maintenance plan (Hampton Roads, Virginia AQCR) for allcriteria pollutants, but would involve helicopter emissions determined to be below de minimis levelsfor impacts requiring evaluation under the General Conformity Rule. Pursuant to this conformityreview, a RONA has been drafted and is included with this EIS/OEIS. An area designated “nonattainment” (Delaware) for 8-hour ozone, but would involve the production ofno additional emissions above No Action Alternative levels, and no emissions that would mix withground-level concentrations. Pursuant to this conformity review, a RONA has been drafted and isincluded with this EIS/OEIS. Offshore areas unclassified for priority pollutants, where surface ship emissions are minimal andfixed-wing aircraft typically produce emissions above the mixing layer.Therefore, under NEPA, there would be no significant impact to air quality from implementingAlternative 2. Under EO 12114, there would be no significant harm to the air quality over non-territorialwaters from implementing Alternative 2.3-82 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air Quality3.4.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsUnder either action alternative, the participation of additional helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft in Navytraining within the VACAPES Range Complex would result in minor, short-term effects, such as minorincreases of aircraft air emissions within the airsheds. However, they would not result in any unavoidablesignificant environmental effects.3.4.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)Activities associated with implementation of Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in increases in airemissions above No Action Alternative conditions. Within U.S. territory, emission increases mainlywould be associated with increased engine operations of MH-60S helicopters, small boats, and rangesupport craft. Outside U.S. territory, emission increases primarily would be associated with increasedoperations of surface vessels and fixed-wing aircraft. Although Alternatives 1 and 2 would result inincreases in emissions of air pollutants, all air impacts would be less than significant in scope andintensity for the following reasons.All training and testing events associated with the action alternatives within or adjacent to Maryland,North Carolina and Virginia Eastern Shore counties would occur in areas designated by the USEPA as“in attainment” for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, the General Conformity Rule would not apply.All training and testing events associated with the action alternatives within or adjacent to Delawarewould occur within areas designated by the USEPA as “nonattainment” areas for the 8-hour ozonestandard. However, because test track flights would occur above 6,000 feet, aircraft emissions wouldnot affect pollutant concentrations at ground level. A RONA is included with this EIS/OEIS.Most training event types and operations or sorties would occur more than 12 nm from the shore, andwould not affect the air quality for human receptors.Most aircraft training emissions would occur above 3,000 feet, which is above the atmosphericinversion layer. As a result, they would not affect local air quality.MH-60S emissions associated with the homebasing of the aircraft at Naval Station Norfolk wereevaluated in an EA (DoN, 2002) and were determined to be below de minimis levels. Theseoperations are applicable to actions occurring within the Hampton Roads, Virginia AQCR.F/A-18 E/F emissions associated with the homebasing of the aircraft at Naval Air Station Oceana wereevaluated in a final EIS (DoN, 2003) and were determined to be below de minimis levels.As shown in Table 3.4-5, implementation of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2would not result in significant impacts to regional air quality. Implementation of the No ActionAlternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2 would not result in significant harm to the air quality of theglobal commons.3-83 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.4 – Air QualityTABLE 3.4-5SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVESON AIR QUALITY IN THE VACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREAAlternative andStressorNo ActionSurface shipemissionsHelicopteremissionsFixed-wingaircraft emissionsWeapon andtarget emissionsImpactconclusionAlternative 1Surface shipemissionsHelicopteremissionsFixed-wingaircraft emissionsWeapon andtarget emissionsImpactconclusionAlternative 2Surface shipemissionsHelicopteremissionsFixed-wingaircraft emissionsWeapon andtarget emissionsImpactconclusionNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)Minor localized emissions.Minor localized emissions. Coastalcounties in MD and NC are “in attainment”for all criteria pollutants. RONA forHampton Roads AQCR.Minor localized emissions. Coastalcounties in MD and NC are “in attainment”for all criteria pollutants. RONA for DE.Negligible impacts.No significant impacts to study area airquality.Minor localized emissions.Minor localized emissions. Coastalcounties in MD and NC are “in attainment”for all criteria pollutants. RONA forHampton Roads AQCR.Minor localized emissions. Coastalcounties in MD and NC are “in attainment”for all criteria pollutants. RONA for DE.Negligible impacts.No significant impacts to study area airquality.Minor localized emissions.Minor localized emissions. Coastalcounties in MD and NC are “in attainment”for all criteria pollutants. RONA forHampton Roads AQCR.Minor localized emissions. Coastalcounties in MD and NC are “in attainment”for all criteria pollutants. RONA for DE.Negligible impacts.No significant impacts to study area airquality.Summary of Effects and Impact ConclusionExecutive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Minor at-sea emissions. No long-term harmto the global commons.Minor at-sea emissions. No long-term harmto the global commons.Minor at-sea emissions. No long-term harmto the global commons.Negligible harm to the global commons.No significant harm to study area airquality.Minor at-sea emissions. No long-term harmto the global commons.Minor at-sea emissions. No long-term harmto the global commons.Minor at-sea emissions. No long-term harmto the global commons.Negligible harm to the global commons.No significant harm to study area airquality.Minor at-sea emissions. No long-term harmto the global commons.Minor at-sea emissions. No long-term harmto the global commons.Minor at-sea emissions. No long-term harmto the global commons.Negligible harm to the global commons.No significant harm to study area airquality.3-84 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.5 AIRBORNE NOISE ENVIRONMENTChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise Environment3.5.1 Introduction and MethodsSound is a physical phenomenon and a form of energy that can be described, measured, and representedwith mathematical expressions. Noise, on the other hand, is not a physical process, but rather an implicitsocial value, defined generally as unwanted sound. Recognition of sound is based on the receptor’sobjective and reproducible response to sound’s primary physical attributes: intensity (perceived by thereceptor as loudness), frequency (perceived as pitch), frequency distribution and variation over time, andduration (whether continuous, sporadic, or impulse). Perception of sound, however, is subjective andcircumstantial. Sounds that are soothing to some are annoying to others, and sounds barely noticed andgenerally ignored in one circumstance, may be considered highly objectionable in another circumstance.Beyond subjective effects, however, sound at higher intensities or power levels can have physicalconsequences. The range of such impacts have been defined as falling into three categories as soundpressure levels increase: subjective effects (e.g., annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction), interferences withactivities (e.g., communication, sleep, learning, behavioral changes), and physiological effects (e.g.,anxiety, hearing impacts, loss of hearing).The analysis presented in this section is limited to impacts resulting from airborne noise. Impacts ofmilitary-generated underwater sound on natural resources are addressed in Sections 3.6 (MarineCommunities), 3.7 (Marine Mammals), 3.8 (Sea Turtles), 3.9 (Fish), and 3.10 (Seabirds and MigratoryBirds).3.5.1.1 Sound CharacteristicsSound FundamentalsSound is typically described by its magnitude (otherwise referred to as amplitude), intensity, andfrequency and the changes in those values over time (e.g., sudden impulse vs. continuous vs. repetitive).The physical phenomenon of sound is generated by mechanical vibrations traveling through an elasticmedium (i.e. air or water), resulting in a rapid change in pressure (high and low pressure fluctuations orwaves) in the medium.Sound waves are characterized by parameters such as amplitude, intensity, wavelength, frequency, andvelocity. The amount of energy contained in a sound pressure wave is referred to as its amplitude, whilethe amount of energy passing through a unit area per unit of time is the sound wave’s intensity. The unitsof sound intensity are watts per square meter (energy per unit of time per unit of area). Amplitude andintensity are directly and linearly related. Higher amplitude sounds are perceived to be louder than loweramplitude sounds. Sound pressures are usually represented in Pascals (Pa.). A Pascal is equal to oneNewton of force distributed over one square meter. The maximum noise pressure level of a noise event isreferred to as the “peak noise level.”The frequency of sound represents the rate at which the source produces sound waves (a complete cycleof high and low pressure waves) or the rate at which the sound-producing body completes one vibrationcycle. Frequency is a precisely measurable quantity representative of a particular sound. Sounds areproduced throughout a wide range of frequencies, including frequencies beyond the audible range of agiven receptor. Most of the sounds we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, butrather a broad band of frequencies differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add togenerate the sound we hear.The speed of sound is not affected by its intensity, amplitude, or frequency, but rather is dependentwholly on the characteristics of the medium through which it is passing. Sound generally travels faster asthe density of the medium increases. Speed of sounds through air are primarily influenced by air3-85 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise Environmenttemperature, and negligibly by the air’s relative humidity and pressure, averaging about 1,115 ft/s(340 m/s) at standard barometric pressure. Sound speeds in air increase as air temperature increases.Speed of sounds in liquid is similarly influenced primarily by the liquid’s density and temperature. Thus,the speed of sound in 0ºC (32ºF) water is 4,600 ft/s (1402 m/s) and in 20ºC (68ºF) water is 4,862 ft/s(1533 m/s).The speed of sounds in solids is a more complex matter, with longitudinal and transverse waves travelingat different speeds depending on the density of the material as well as its geometry and molecularstructure.The mathematical relationship between sound stimulus and sound perception by a receptor is logarithmic.This logarithmic relationship between magnitude and perception is the basis for the decibel (dB) scaleused to express sound intensity. The decibel scale measures relative sound intensities rather than absoluteintensities; specifically, it measures the ratio of a given intensity (of sound) to the threshold soundintensity of human hearing (by definition 0 dB). For most human individuals, a sound wave pressure of20 micro Pascals (Pa) represents the hearing threshold. As sound stimuli increases geometrically (i.e.,multiplied by a fixed factor), the corresponding perception changes arithmetically (i.e., additive byconstant amounts). Thus, a tenfold increase in sound stimulus over the threshold of hearing is assigned avalue of 10 dB but is perceived as a doubling of loudness; a hundredfold increase to 20 dB is perceived assound that is four times louder, and so forth.Although sound is a physical phenomenon that can be represented by mathematical expressions andmeasured with precision, perception of sound pressure levels (SPL) is the result of physiologicalresponses as well as subjective factors, each influenced by current circumstances and past exposures. TheSPL is the perception of a sound wave’s pressure by a single receptor at a specified distance and directionfrom the sound source.SPLs are measured by sound level meters, which typically contain filters that reduce the meter’ssensitivity to frequencies of little or no relevance to the receptor. The method commonly used to quantifyenvironmental sounds consists of determining all the frequencies according to a weighting system thatreflects the nonlinear response characteristics of the human ear. A meter that filters very low and veryhigh frequency sounds thus acts as a general approximation of the human ear’s response to sounds ofmedium intensity. This is called “A” weighting, and the decibel level measured is called the A-weightedsound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a noise source is conveniently measured using a sound levelmeter that includes a filter corresponding to the dBA curve.Sound meters also can be used to measure loud high- and middle-frequency sound (B-weighted), veryloud low-frequency sound (C-weighted), very loud sounds associated with aircraft (D-weighted), andinfrasound (

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise Environmentadded together. Integrating varying noise levels and sources over a given period requires complexcalculations or modeling.To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors L 10 , L 50 ,and L 90 are commonly used. They are the noise levels equaled or exceeded during 10 percent, 50 percent,and 90 percent of a stated period, respectively. L 10 values reflect transient or short-term events, while L 90values describe the most prevalent noise conditions. The acoustic range of the noise source is determinedby measuring the maximum (L max ) and minimum (L min ) sound levels. The L min value obtained for aparticular monitoring location is the “acoustic floor” for that location.A sound measure employed by federal agencies is known as the Day-Night Average Sound Level (L dn ).The L dn is defined as the A-weighted average sound level for a 24-hour day. It is a calculated noisemetric derived from measurements, but includes a 10-dB penalty for late-night (i.e., 10:00 p.m. to 7:00a.m.) sound levels. This penalty accounts for the increased sensitivity of humans to noise at night.COMMON SOUND LEVEL LOUDNESSSOUNDS dB – Compared to 70 dB –— 130Oxygen Torch — 120 UNCOMFORTABLE —— 32 Times as LoudDiscotheque — 110 —— 16 Times as LoudTextile Mill — 100 VERY LOUDHeavy Truck at 50 Feet — 90 —— 4 Times as LoudGarbage Disposal — 80Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Feet — 70Automobile at 100 FeetAir Conditioner at 100 Feet — 60MODERATELY LOUD•Quiet Urban Daytime — 50 —— 1/ 4 as LoudQUIETQuiet Urban Nighttime — 40Bedroom at Night — 30 —— 1/ 16 as Loud— 20— 10 JUST AUDIBLEThreshold of Hearing — 0Source: Handbook of Noise Control, C.M. Harris, Editor, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1979, and FICAN 1992.Figure 3.5-1Sound Levels of Typical Airborne Noise Sources and Environments3-87 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISSound PropagationChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise EnvironmentUnderstanding the impact of sound on a receptor requires a basic understanding of how sound propagatesfrom its source. Sound propagation follows the inverse square law: the intensity of a sound wavedeceases inversely with the square of the distance between the source and the receptor. Thus, doublingthe distance between the receptor and a sound source results in a reduction in the intensity of the sound ofone fourth of its initial value; tripling the distance results in one ninth of the original intensity, and so on.The distinctions between airborne sound and underwater sound transmission are based on the differentphysical characteristics of the two media. In general, sound is transmitted much more efficiently in waterthan in air. A simple rule-of-thumb is to add 26 dB to airborne sound levels to get their underwaterequivalents (Kinsler et al., 1982).3.5.1.2 Regulatory FrameworkThe Navy meets its noise management obligations at air-to-ground training ranges (i.e., on-land targets)through the Range Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (RAICUZ) program found in OPNAVInstruction 3550.1A (DoN, 2008). RAICUZ Program implementation includes developing current andfuture Range Compatibility Zones (RCZ) and current and prospective noise analysis for the range,partnering with appropriate federal, state, and local government agencies (working with these agencies forcompatible land use near and around the ranges), considering operational alternatives as necessary,implementing a complaint response program in the surrounding communities, and developing strategiesto protect the long term viability of the range while maintaining a high degree of public safety(DoN, 2008). According to Appendix C of OPNAVINST 3550.1A, the only air-to-ground ranges withinthe VACAPES Range Complex, wherein the RAICUZ Program requirements must be implemented areR-5313 Stumpy Point Range and R-5314 Navy Dare County Range (DoN, 2008). However, because noair-to-ground training ranges are considered under this EIS/OEIS, the RAICUZ program is inapplicablehere. All training spaces considered within this EIS/OEIS are over water and distant from any noisereceptors.The DoD has a similar program for air stations, called the Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone(AICUZ) program (DoN, 2002b). The foundation of the AICUZ program is an active local commandeffort to work with local, state, regional, other federal agencies, and community leaders to encouragecompatible development of land adjacent to military airfields. The Navy is particularly susceptible tosuch encroachment with many of its installations located in high growth urban areas. The AICUZ processinvolves four basic steps:1. Develop, and periodically update, a study for each air installation to quantify aircraft noise zonesand identify accident potential zones; develop a noise reduction strategy for impacted lands, both onand off the installation; prepare a compatible land use plan for the installation and surrounding areas;and develop a strategy to promote compatible development on land within these areas.2. Develop a prospective long-term (5 to 10 years) AICUZ analysis to illustrate impact on knownfuture missions and how it will be implemented by the AICUZ program.3. Implement the AICUZ plan for the installation including coordination with federal, state and localofficials to maintain public awareness of AICUZ.4. Identify and program property rights acquisition and sound suppression projects when appropriate incritical areas, where action to achieve compatibility within AICUZ program guidelines through localland use controls is either impossible or has been attempted and proven unsuccessful.Although not within the boundaries of the VACAPES Range Complex and not analyzed in thisEIS/OEIS, Naval Air Station Oceana is mentioned here due to its proximity to the Complex, and because3-88 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise Environmentthe aircraft stationed there are primary users of the range complex. The AICUZ program for Naval AirStation Oceana and NALF Fentress was first established by the Navy in 1978. This AICUZ wasconsidered representative of operations at these facilities for over 20 years. In 1998, the Navy initiated astudy to update the AICUZ based on operational changes that occurred with the realignment of themajority of the Hornet squadrons from Naval Air Station Cecil Field, FL to Naval Air Station Oceana in1999.Due to the possibility of mission changes at Naval Air Station Oceana and Chambers Field Naval Station,Norfolk, the formal approval of a new AICUZ was put on hold until the completion of the siting processfor the MH-60 R/S helicopters and the Superhornet aircraft. However, the cities of Chesapeake andVirginia Beach adopted the noise contours as part of their comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances(DoN, 2003). Primary flight operations that occur at NAS Oceana are departures, straight-in full stoparrivals, overhead-break arrivals, carrier-break arrivals, touch-and go, Field Carrier Landing Practice(FCLP), and Ground Controlled Approaches (GCA). These operations form the basis for the noisecontours and Accident Potential Zones (APZ).An AICUZ Study was also performed for Naval Station Norfolk (Chambers Field). The latest AICUZwas the adopted AICUZ map from 1979. This study is reflected in the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) forHampton Roads. The baseline noise contours for this area are depicted in Section 3.5.2.2.3.5.1.3 Assessment Methods and Data UsedThe method used in this EIS/OEIS to assess the noise environment impacts associated with existing andproposed Navy training and testing within the VACAPES Range Complex, includes following the belowsteps:Analyze existing federal noise management regulations applicable to the proposed action;Consider existing Navy policies affecting noise production levels (e.g., the RAICUZ Program andrange Standard Operating Procedures);Analyze the natural ambient or background noise levels in the range complex;Analyze the various types of noise sources associated with training and testing within the VACAPESRange Complex (e.g., continuous versus impulsive noises);Review existing noise studies performed in connection with homebasing decisions, individualexercises, or tests;Determine the overall noise environment impacts associated with existing Navy training and testingwithin the range complex given the regulatory/procedural framework; andDetermine the overall noise environment impacts associated with the proposed Navy training andtesting within the range complex given the regulatory/procedural framework.It was determined that no noise modeling or monitoring was specifically required for a complete andthorough analysis.The analysis presented in this section is limited to impacts of airborne sound on humans. Impacts ofmilitary-generated sound, including underwater sound, on natural resources are addressed in Sections 3.6(Marine Communities), 3.7 (Marine Mammals), 3.8 (Sea Turtles), 3.9 (Fish), 3.10 (Seabirds andMigratory Birds), and 3.19 (Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training).3.5.1.4 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsTable 3.5-1 illustrates the various training events that occur within the VACAPES Range Complex andthe associated noise stressors. The table also indicates the location of the noise in terms of distance fromshore-based receptors, and in terms of altitude above receptors.3-89 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise EnvironmentTABLE 3.5-1WARFARE AREAS AND ASSOCIATED NOISE STRESSORSStressorsLocationWarfare Area andOperationTraining AreasSurface VesselNoiseHelicopter NoiseFixed-WingAircraft NoiseOrdnance orTarget NoiseBelow 3,000 feetAbove 3,000 feetOverland or < 12nm from Shore> 12 nm fromShoreMine Warfare (MIW)Mine Countermeasures Lower ChesapeakeExercise (MCM)Bay Mine Countermeasures W-50A/CExercise (MCM)W-386, W-72 Mine Neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare(SUW)W-386 (Air-K)Bombing Exercise (Airto-Surface)(at-sea)W-72A (Air-3B)W-72A/B Missile Exercise(MISSILEX) (Air-to-Surface)Gunnery Exercise(GUNEX) (Air-to-Surface)GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) BoatGUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) ShipLaser TargetingW-386 (Air-K) W-72A W-386 (Air-K), W-72A, W-72A (Air-1A), W-50C W-50C, R-6606 W-386, W-72 W-386 (Air-K),W-72A Visit, Board, Search, andSeizure/MaritimeInterception OperationsVACAPES OPAREA (VBSS/MIO)- ShipVBSS/MIO- Helo VACAPES OPAREA Air Warfare (AW)Air Combat Maneuver(ACM)W-72A(Air-2A/B, 3A/B) GUNEX (Air-to-Air) W-72A W-386 (Air D, G, H, K)MISSILEX (Air-to-Air) W-72AGUNEX (Surface-to-Air) W-386, W-72 3-90 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise EnvironmentTABLE 3.5-1WARFARE AREAS AND ASSOCIATED NOISE STRESSORS(Continued)StressorsLocationWarfare Area andOperationTraining AreasSurface VesselNoiseHelicopter NoiseFixed-WingAircraft NoiseOrdnance orTarget NoiseBelow 3,000 feetAbove 3,000 feetOverland or < 12nm from Shore> 12 nm fromShoreMISSILEX (Surface-to-W-386Air)(Air D, G, H, K) Air Intercept Control(AIC)W-386, W-72 Detect to Engage (DTE) W-386, W-72 Strike Warfare (STW)HARM Missile ExerciseAmphibious Warfare(AMW)Firing Exercise (FIREX)with Integrated MaritimePortable AcousticScoring and SimulatorSystem (IMPASS)Electronic Combat(EC)W-386(Air E,F,I,J)W-386 (7C/D, 8C/D),W-72 (1C1/2)(Preferred Areas), W-386 (5C/D)(Secondary Areas ) W-386, W-386 (Air-Chaff Exercise- aircraft K) and W-72Chaff Exercise- ship W-386 and W-72 Flare Exercise- aircraftElectronic Combat (EC)Operations- aircraftW-386, W-386 (Air-K) and W-72 W-386 (Air-K) EC Operations- ship VACAPES OPAREA Other TrainingShipboard ElectronicSystems EvaluationFacility (SESEF)UtilizationVACAPES OPAREA 3.5.2 Affected EnvironmentVarious activities and processes, both natural and anthropogenic, above and below the water’s surface,contribute to the sound profile of the ocean environment. This section focuses on sound above the3-91 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise Environmentwater’s surface and its potential impacts to human receptors. Later sections of this EIS/OEIS describe thepotential impacts of underwater sound on human divers and marine species. Section 3.5.2.1 describes theaffected sound environment offshore, while Section 3.5.2.2 describes the affected sound environment nearshore.3.5.2.1 VACAPES OPAREAAmbient Sound in the Ocean EnvironmentAmbient airborne sound in the ocean environment typically consists of continuous noise sourcesemanating from breaking waves and wind. In general, ambient sound levels tend to be greatest inrelatively shallow nearshore environments and appear to be directly related to wind speeds and indirectlyrelated to sea-state (Willie and Geyer, 1984). Intermittent airborne noise sources also include those fromman-made sources. In addition to sound from shipping, other manmade sources of airborne noise includemilitary, general aviation, and commercial aircraft; dredging; nearshore construction activities; militaryexplosive use; oil and gas exploration and extraction; mineral exploration and extraction; and geophysicalsurveys.Sound from Military SourcesAirborne noise attributable to military activities in the VACAPES Range Complex emanates frommultiple sources including naval ship power plants, military aircraft, targets, bombs, missiles, small arms,and water-based demolitions. Sound from military sources in the VACAPES Range Complex is virtuallyall transitory, and can be widely dispersed or concentrated in small areas for varying periods. Soundlevels from naval ships are analogous to sound levels of commercial shipping.Aircraft OverflightsAircraft overflights contribute sound to the ocean environment. Motors, propellers, or rotors provide themajor contributions, while aerodynamic turbulence also can contribute. In general, helicopters producehigher intensity sounds than fixed wing aircraft (Richardson et al., 1995). Helicopter training activitiesare a common source of airborne sound in offshore areas. As with most manmade sounds, most aircraftsounds involve low frequencies. The angle of incidence of a sound wave propagating from an aircraftmust enter the water at an angle of incidence of 13º from the vertical or less for the wave to continuepropagating under the water’s surface. At greater angles of incidence, the water surface acts as aneffective reflector of the sound wave and very little penetration of the wave below the water occurs(Urick, 1972). Military activities involving aircraft generally are dispersed over large expanse of the openocean, but can be highly concentrated in time and location near Naval Station Norfolk and Naval AirStation Oceana. Representative airborne sound levels associated with military aircraft are depicted inTable 3.5-2.In addition to Navy aircraft, commercial air services (CAS) aircraft also produce airborne noise. CASaircraft include Lear jets, tankers, small propeller drive aircraft, and Kafir jets. The noise generated bythese CAS aircraft will occur during Electronic Combat (EC), Air Intercept Control (AIC), GUNEX (S-A), GUNEX (A-A) and Detect-to-Engage (DTE) events. Most noise generated by these CAS aircraft willoccur above 3,000 feet and greater than 12 nm from shore. CAS aircraft participating in VACAPESRange Complex training events depart from the Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport inNewport News, Virginia. This airport is adjacent to the Virginia Capes Range Complex Study Area.3-92 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise EnvironmentTABLE 3.5-2REPRESENTATIVE AIRCRAFT AND ORDNANCE AIRBORNE SOUND SOURCESIN THE VACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREANoise SourceSound Level(dBA)Typical NoiseEnvironmentJet Aircraft under Military Power 144 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREA at AircraftCarrierJet Aircraft under Afterburner 148 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREA at AircraftCarrierH-60 8 Helicopter Hovering 90 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREA, ChesapeakeBay/Willoughby Bay and R-6606Marine Marker Charge MK-58, 25 60 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREAMine Shapes (BDU-45,MK-62, 63, 65) 105 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREAChaff Packets (at impact) Aircraft ALE-37 90 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREAAircraft Defensive Flares 65 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREAHigh Explosive (HE) MK-82 * 136 dBP @ 1000 ft. See Figures 2.2-6 and 2.2-7HE MK-83 * 138 dBP @ 1000 ft. See Figures 2.2-6 and 2.2-7HE MK-84 * 141 dBP @ 1000 ft. See Figures 2.2-6 and 2.2-7NEPM Bombs 25 lb, spotting charge 60 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREANEPM Bombs 500 lb (at impact) 105 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREANEPM Bombs 1,000 lb (at impact) 108 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREANaval Gun Ammunition five in/54 110 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREACannon Shells 20mm (at source) 105 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREACannon Shells 25mm (at source) 110 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREA7.62mm M60 Machine Gun 90 @ 50 ft. VACAPES OPAREA.50 cal Machine Gun 98 @ 50 ft.(or 136 dBP, at 50 ft)VACAPES OPAREANotes: 50 feet and 1,000 feet are standard reference distances. AB – afterburner; BDU - Bomb Dummy Unit; cal - caliber; dBA -decibels, A-weighted; ft. - feet; lb - pound; mm - millimeters; NEPM: Non-explosive practice munition; HE: high explosive; dBP(peak sound level). * Noise levels predicted using US Army Corps of Engineers BNOISE 2 modelSource except as noted: Investigative Science and Engineering (ISE), 1997; CDR Solberg, 2008.Airborne noise at this airport and immediate vicinity is dominated by the larger commercial airlineaircraft. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, there are 227,363 operations per year atNewport News/Williamsburg International Airport (FAA, 2008). Under the Proposed Action, therewould be an additional 93 flights from the airport to support VACAPES Range Complex training events.This represents 4/100ths of one percent increase in flights from the airport. When combined with theflights from this airport that also support certain Navy Cherry Point Range Complex training events, theincrease in flight operations from the airport represents an increase of 14/100ths of one percent.Missile and Target LaunchSound associated with missile and target launches occurs in the VACAPES OPAREA during scheduledevents. Due to safety concerns over launch activities, a buffer zone of several square miles is alwaysinstituted and enforced. Sound due to missile and target launches is typically at a maximum at the point8 Noise Data for the H-60 platform is considered comparable to the MH-53 and SH-60B/F platforms evaluated inthis EIS/OEIS.3-93 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise Environmentof initiation of the booster rocket, and rapidly fades as (1)the missile or target reaches optimal thrust conditions; and Figure 3.5-2: Target Drone Launch(2) the missile or target reaches a downrange distancewhere the booster burns out and the sustainer enginecontinues. For example, data for the BQM-34 show thatits booster Jet Assisted Take-Off (JATO) bottles generate113 dBA at the source at launch. Sound levels decrease to99 dBA at 2,400 feet (732 m) (DoN, 1998b). The BQM-34 is used in the VACAPES OPAREA (though much lessfrequently than the smaller BQM-74).In the VACAPES Range Complex, the BQM-74 is thetypical target. It can be launched from land, sea or air.Noise related to land launches is discussed inSection 3.5.2.2. It is launched from surface vessels(Figure 3.5-2) (e.g., the Theater Support Vessel (TSV)1Prevail) via a rail by a solid rocket booster and sustained by a small conventional jet engine. The typicaltime that such target drones are launched is during the Composite Training Unit Exercises (COMPTUEX)conducted a few times per year. Missiles are launched from high-altitude aircraft and from surface shipsin the offshore area.Ordnance UseSound results from ordnance use in the VACAPES Range Complex, both within the VACAPESOPAREA and the nearshore areas. Representative ordnance sound levels are depicted in Table 3.5-2.Sonic Boom NoiseSupersonic aircraft flights can occur from time to time in the VACAPES OPAREA. Such flights areusually limited to altitudes above 30,000 feet (9,100 m) and/or locations more than 30 nm (56 km) fromshore. Several factors influence sonic booms: weight, size, shape or aircraft or vehicle; altitude; flightpaths; and atmospheric conditions. A larger and heavier aircraft must displace more air and create morelift to sustain flight, compared with small, light aircraft. Therefore, larger aircraft create sonic booms thatare stronger and louder than those of smaller, lighter aircraft. Consequently, the larger and heavier theaircraft, the stronger the shock waves will be (DoN, 2007).Of all the factors influencing sonic booms, increasing altitude is the most effective method of reducingsonic boom intensity. The width of the boom “carpet” or area exposed to sonic boom beneath an aircraftis about 1 mile (1.6 km) for each 1,000 feet (300 m) of altitude. For example, an aircraft flyingsupersonic straight and level at 50,000 feet (15,000 m) can produce a sonic boom carpet about 50 miles(80 km) wide. The sonic boom, however, will not be uniform. Maximum intensity is directly beneath theaircraft, and decreases as the lateral distance from the flight path increases until shock waves refract awayfrom the ground and the sonic boom attenuates. The lateral spreading of the sonic boom depends only onaltitude, speed, and the atmosphere, and is independent of the vehicle’s shape, size, and weight. The ratioof the aircraft length to maximum cross sectional area also influences the intensity of the sonic boom.The longer and more slender the aircraft, the weaker the shock waves. The wider and more blunt thevehicle, the stronger the shock wave can be (DoN, 2007).Sonic booms are generated as aircraft reach Mach 1.0 (speed of sound) and increase in intensity as theMach number increases. Increasing speeds above Mach 1.3 result in only small changes in shock wavestrength. The direction of travel and strength of shock waves are influenced by wind, speed, direction, airtemperature, and pressure. At speeds slightly greater than Mach 1.0, the effect of these factors can be3-94 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise Environmentsignificant, but their influence is small at speeds greater than Mach 1.3. Therefore, supersonic flightactivity has been characterized for aircraft capable of supersonic flight at a fixed speed of Mach 1.3 and atvarious altitudes in standard atmospheric conditions (DoN, 2007). A detailed discussion of sonic boomsis provided in Appendix H.Non-Explosive Impact NoiseNon-explosive impact sound in the VACAPES Range Complex is generally from high-velocity “dummy”projectiles and non-explosive practice munitions (training bombs). Sounds of this type are produced bythe kinetic energy transfer of the object with the target surface, and are highly localized to the area ofdisturbance. Sound associated with the impact event is typically of low frequency (less than 250 Hz) andof a short enough duration (i.e., impulse sound) that it produces negligible amounts of acoustic energy.These events occur on remote ranges that are restricted from the public, so they often go unobserved andunheard. The impacts may be scored by remote observers - participants in the exercise who are at a safedistance from the source.ExplosivesExplosives detonated underwater introduce loud, impulsive, broadband sounds into the marineenvironment. The acoustic energy of an explosive is generally greater than that of sonar. Three sourceparameters influence the effect of an explosive: the weight of the explosive warhead, the type ofexplosive material, and the detonation depth. The net explosive weight (NEW) accounts for the first twoparameters. The NEW of an explosive is the weight of the explosive material in a given round,referenced to the explosive power of TNT.The detonation depth of an explosive is important due to a propagation effect known as surface-imageinterference. For sources located near the sea surface, a distinct interference pattern arises from thecoherent sum of the two paths that differ only by a single reflection from the pressure-release surface. Asthe source depth and/or the source frequency decreases, these two paths increasingly, destructivelyinterfere with each other, reaching total cancellation at the surface (barring surface reflection scatteringloss). Since most explosive sources used in military activities in the VACAPES OPAREA are munitionsthat detonate essentially upon impact, the effective source depths are quite shallow and, therefore, thesurface-image interference effect can be pronounced. Table 3.5-3 identifies explosive ordnance typesused, corresponding NEWs, and expected detonation depths.TABLE 3.5-3EXPLOSIVE SOURCES IN THE VACAPES RANGE COMPLEXOrdnance Net Explosive Weight Detonation Depth5” Naval gunfire 8.5-lbs 1 ftMaverick missile 100-lbs At or just below water’s surfaceHellfire AGM-114 missile 8-lbs At or just below water’s surfaceHARM Missile 48-lbs 30-60 ft above surfaceAIM-7 missile 86-lbs N/A - High altitude above surfaceAIM-9 missile 88-lbs N/A - High altitude above surfaceAIM-120 missile 340-lbs N/A - High altitude above surfaceMK-20 bomb 109.7-lbs 3.28 ftMK-82 bomb 192.2-lbs 3.28 ftMK-83 bomb 415.8-lbs 3.28 ftMK-84 bomb 944.7-lbs 3.28 ftUnderwater Mine Neutralization Charges 20-lbs Mid-column to bottomAMNS 3.24-lbs Variable mid-column3-95 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise EnvironmentThe sound of a Hellfire missile detonation is described in the Overseas Environmental Assessment ofTesting the Hellfire Missile System’s Integration with the H-60 Helicopter (NAVAIR, 2005). Thegreatest sound intensity generated from the firing of a Hellfire missile is approximately 149 dB re 1 μPaat 15 feet altitude (NAVAIR, 2005). Due to the great distance from shore where these events occur, theseexplosions are not likely to impact human sound receptors ashore.3.5.2.2 Sound in the Chesapeake Bay / Willoughby Bay and Nearshore AtlanticOceanSound SourcesSound from OrdnanceSound attributable to training and testing ordnance in the nearshore Study Area environment results fromsmall caliber gunfire (e.g., 7.62 mm, .50 cal), and mine neutralization events (using up to 20 lbs NEW).The types and quantities of ordnance expended, and thus the sound levels generated, depend on thetraining objectives and the range used. Table 3.5-2 depicts sound levels for representative ordnance typesutilized in military training in the nearshore environment.Because impulsive noise, such as that generated by explosions or gun firing, is fundamentally differentfrom noise from continuous sources, threshold criteria for impulsive noise are different from those forcontinuous noise. The threshold for permanent ear damage to unprotected ears due to continuous noise isapproximately 85 dBA based on an eight-hour-per-day exposure, while the threshold for permanent eardamage to unprotected ears due to impulsive noise is approximately 140 dBP based on 100 exposures perday (Pater, 1976).Gunnery exercises near shore would be limited to R-6606 and W-50 for boats and Naval Special Forces.W-50 is used for mine neutralization events, which were previously evaluated in 2002 (DoN, 2002a;NMFS, 2002). No gunnery or mine neutralization would occur in the Chesapeake Bay area. TheChesapeake Bay area is a proposed area for mine countermeasures exercises. Such events areintermittent, and distant enough from sensitive human receptors to be insignificant.Aircraft OverflightThe dominant nearshore aircraft noise sources in the EIS/OEIS Study Area stem from rotary wing aircraftoverflights associated with MIW training. Noise associated aircraft flight in the ChesapeakeBay/Willoughby Bay Area is generated primarily by low-level operation of rotary-wing aircraft and F/A-18 aircraft. Baseline noise levels in this area were recently studied in the EA for the Homebasing of theMH-60R/S Helicopter on the East Coast of the United States (DoN, 2002a). It was determined that theproposed action would not expand the noise contours at any of the three installations. The compositenoise contours at Naval Station Norfolk would continue to be dominated by fixed-wing aircraft.The MH-60R/S Homebasing EA incorporated a noise study produced by Wyle Laboratories, Inc (Wyle).Wyle used the Rotorcraft Noise Model (RNM) version 3.0 to model the existing and forecast conditionsfor Naval Station Norfolk. RNM, developed by Wyle for the NASA-Langley Research Center, is acomputer model that calculates far-field noise for single-event or multiple flight vehicle operations.According to the Noise Study, the 65, 70 and 75 dB contours are almost wholly contained within theboundaries of the base, but do extend in certain places out over bodies of water. The noise contours ateither end of Runway 10/28 (Chambers Field) are caused by the pattern operations, of which 5 percent ofall touch and go operations and 100 percent of the ground controlled approach patterns occur on thisrunway. The bulk of the operations take place on the heliport, and the noise exposure around this helipadis, thus, larger than any of the other locations. The contour primarily extends out over the river and doesnot pose a burden to residences.3-96 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise EnvironmentFigure 3.5-3 depicts the 2001 baseline noise contours at NS Norfolk.Target Drone LaunchesIn addition to launches initiated from the VACAPES OPAREA, airborne targets are sometimes launchedfrom land. The locations for these launches are: the NAS Oceana’s Dam Neck Annex in Virginia Beach,Virginia, and Wallops Island on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. The BQM-74 is launched via a rail by a solidrocket booster and sustained by a small conventional jet engine. Although no data are available on theBQM-74, another Navy training range (i.e., the Point Mugu Sea Range on the U.S. west coast) hasrecorded sound measurements for BQM-34 target launches. The BQM-34 is almost twice as large as theBQM-74; data for the BQM-34 show that its booster JATO bottles generate 113 dBA at the source atlaunch. Sound levels decrease to 99 dBA at 2,400 feet (732 m) (DoN, 1998b). The Dam Neck BQM-74launch pad is located within the sand dune line next to the Atlantic Ocean. Due to high ambient noiselevels from the wave breaks and sea breezes, it is difficult to hear the target drone launches from as closeas a few hundred yards.Sensitive ReceptorsSensitive receptors are those noise-sensitive areas, including developed and undeveloped areas for landuses such as residences, business, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and parks. Military personnelare not considered to be sensitive receptors of airborne noise for purposes of environmental impactanalysis. While persons on recreational or fishing vessels within the Willoughby Bay, Chesapeake Bay,or VACAPES OPAREA might be exposed to sound generated by military activities, the likelihood ofsuch exposure is quite low, due to extensive SOPs employed by the Navy to ensure civilian persons donot interfere and are not inadvertently affected by military activities.The Navy tries to reduce the impacts of noise on civilian populations. The FACSFAC VACAPESOperations Manual (incorporating CINCLANTFLT INST 3120.26) reminds pilots to avoid populatedareas, prohibits use of afterburners in certain areas, and other actions that could cause increased noiselevels. The Navy has an established complaint line (1-757-433-2162) to receive noise complaints fromthe community around Naval Air Station Oceana. This is an automated system capable of receiving calls24 hours a day. The messages are reviewed each day to provide an opportunity for a Navy official tofollow-up with a phone call to the person placing the complaint if sufficient call return information isprovided in the message. The incidents are investigated as to the nature of the offensive noise event, andthe appropriate squadrons or users of the Range are notified if the pilot operated outside the approvedparameters of range use (NAS Oceana, 2007).The nearest human receptors to the Dam Neck target drone launch area, and W-50 are located in theresidential community of Sandbridge Beach (over 1,000 yards south of the launch pad). Gunneryexercises in W-50 would take place at least 3 miles offshore. The Officer in Charge of BQM-74E targetdrone launches at Dam Neck has received no noise complaints in the past few years (Barnes, 2007).3.5.3 Environmental Consequences:3.5.3.1 No Action AlternativeMilitary activities in the VACAPES OPAREA, especially live firing of weapons and aircraft operations,are sources of intrusive noise in the vicinity within which they occur. Military personnel who might beexposed to noise from these activities are required to take precautions, such as the wearing of personalprotective equipment, to reduce or eliminate potential harmful effects of such exposure (militarypersonnel are not considered sensitive receptors for purposes of impacts analysis). With regard topotential exposure of non-military personnel in ocean areas (such as fishermen in the VACAPES3-97 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise EnvironmentFigure 3.5-3Naval Station Norfolk Calendar Year 2001 Noise Contours3-98 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise EnvironmentOPAREA) precautions are taken pursuant to SOPs to prevent such exposure (see Section 3.18). Aircrafttraining (including its commercial air services support) in the VACAPES OPAREA typically occursabove 3,000 feet which, thus, reduces the sound exposure to humans operating commercial or recreationalsurface vessels.As shown on the noise study map for the Naval Station Norfolk area (Figure 3.5-3), noticeable noiselevels are contained within the air station and over adjacent waters and, therefore, do not present animpact to human receptors. The noise contours on this map are representative of noise levels associatedwith current helicopter mine countermeasures training with MK-105 towed arrays. As evidenced by thelack of noise complaints, noise associated with BQM-74E target drone launches from the Dam NeckAnnex has not affected the closest residential community (1,000 yards away). No known noisecomplaints have been filed relative to EOD underwater detonations. Because sound-generating events areintermittent, occur in remote areas or off-limits areas, they do not expose a substantial number of humanreceptors to high noise levels. Few sensitive receptors are likely to be exposed to sound from suchmilitary activities in the near shore or offshore areas. Therefore, there would be no significant impact onthe human noise environment from implementing current Navy training and testing. Furthermore, therewould be no significant harm to the human noise environment from implementing the No ActionAlternative.3.5.3.2 Alternative 1Under Alternative 1, the number of noise generating operations or activities would increase. Thisincrease in operations would not be expected to result in substantial increases of overall Study Area noiselevels. As noted, extensive precautions are taken to eliminate exposure of non-military personnel tounwanted sound from military activities. As with the No-Action Alternative, sound-generating events inthe VACAPES OPAREA under Alternative 1 are intermittent, occur in remote areas or off-limits areas,and do not expose a substantial number of human receptors to high noise levels. No sensitive receptorsare likely to be exposed to sound from such military activities.Certain events (i.e., EC, AIC, DTE, GUNEX (A-A) and GUNEX (S-A)) using commercial air services(CAS) will increase by ninety-three sorties under Alternative 1. The CAS flights typically occur ataltitudes over 3,000 feet and greater than 12 nm from shore. Shore-based sensitive receptors are notexpected to be impacted by the noise generated. Given the small number of departures/landings at theNewport News/Williamsburg International Airport, CAS aircraft-generated noise at the airport underAlternative 1 is considered insignificant. Thus, CAS flights and CAS supported events are not expectedto produce significant impacts to the airborne noise environment under Alternative 1.In the Willoughby Bay/Chesapeake Bay area, noise levels under Alternative 1 are expected to increaseslightly due to the arrival of additional helicopters at Naval Station Norfolk. The noise contours for thisincrease in platforms were also presented in the MH60R/S Homebasing EA (DoN, 2002a). Figure 3.5-4illustrates the expected (2015) noise contours in this area. The noise contours do not change appreciablyover land between 2001 and 2015, and it was determined in the 2002 EA that noise levels associated withthe additional helicopters was less than significant. Noise associated with BQM-74E target dronelaunches from the Dam Neck Annex is expected to remain consistent with current levels. Drone launchesfrom the shore at the Dam Neck Annex under Alternative 1 are expected to remain at the current levels ofapproximately 50 launches per year.Therefore, there would be no significant impact on the human noise environment from implementing theNavy training and testing considered under Alternative 1. Furthermore, there would be no significantharm to the human noise environment from implementing Alternative 1.3-99 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise EnvironmentFigure 3.5-4Naval Station Norfolk Calendar Year 2015 Noise Contours3-100 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise Environment3.5.3.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)The types of effects on humans from sound generated by military activities under Alternative 2 would benearly identical to those under Alternative 1. For example, CAS flights and CAS supported events are thesame under Alternative 1 as under Alternative 2. No significant impacts to the airborne noiseenvironment are expected from these events which take place at high altitude and at a great distance fromshore based sensitive receptors. The only events producing additional noise above those discussed underAlternative 1 are MCM and Mine Neutralization. Training usage of the proposed mine training areaswould produce noise offshore and distant from human receptors ashore. Military personnel who might beexposed to noise from these mine warfare training activities are required to take precautions, such as thewearing of personal protective equipment (e.g., earplugs and flight helmets), to reduce or eliminatepotential harmful effects of such exposure (military personnel are not considered sensitive receptors forpurposes of impacts analysis). In comparison to Alternative 1, twenty additional helicopter sorties wouldoccur each year in connection with Mine Neutralization training under Alternative 2. In comparison toAlternative 1, 40 additional helicopter sorties would occur each year in connection with MCM trainingunder Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, MCM training would be conducted at a variety of mine trainingareas. Each of these areas, however, is located over water and distant from shore. Helicopter noiseassociated with this training is not expected to significantly impact human receptors. Helicopter MineNeutralization training under Alternative 2 is proposed to occur in the Atlantic Ocean in W-50C. Theproposed location is over 3 nm offshore from Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and False Cape StatePark. Few sensitive human receptors would experience the helicopter noise at this distance. UnderAlternative 2, there would also be a substantial decrease in impulsive noise associated with BOMBEX(A-S) training. The noise associated with this training would occur beyond 12 nm from shore and distantfrom any sensitive receptors. As with the No-Action Alternative and Alternative 1, other soundgenerating testing and training events under Alternative 2 are intermittent, occur in remote areas or offlimitsareas, and do not expose a substantial number of human receptors to high noise levels.Therefore, there would be no significant impact on the human noise environment from implementing theNavy training and testing considered under Alternative 2. Furthermore, there would be no significantharm to the human noise environment from implementing Alternative 2.3.5.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsIncreases in operational activity in the VACAPES Range Complex would increase airborne noise levels.However, because Navy training takes place in remote and cleared areas, airborne noise levels wouldprimarily affect military personnel operating the equipment/weapon systems producing the noise.Military personnel wear personal protective equipment and are not considered sensitive receptors as suchterm is used in this EIS/OEIS analysis. Underwater noise impacts to aquatic life are addressed in Sections3.6 (Marine Communities), 3.7 (Marine Mammals), 3.8 (Sea Turtles), and 3.9 (Fish). There are notexpected to be any unavoidable significant environmental effects associated with noise generated by theproposed action.3.5.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)Airborne noise levels generated by the proposed action under the No-Action Alternative and Alternatives1 and 2 would be less than significant because:Noise from training activities in the VACAPES OPAREA would be dispersed and intermittent, whichwould not contribute substantially to long-term noise levels, and few or no sensitive receptors (nonparticipants)would be exposed to these noise events;Noise would be generated in training areas that have been in similar use for more than 50 years - nonew public areas would be exposed to noise from training and testing activities.3-101 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.5 – Airborne Noise Environment The incremental increases in the numbers of range events would not substantially increase long termaverage noise levels; hourly average equivalent noise levels are and would remain relatively low; and Increased helicopter operations at Naval Station Norfolk were evaluated in the MH-60R/S SitingStudy Environmental Assessment and determined to be less than significant.Table 3.5-4 summarizes noise effects for the No Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2.TABLE 3.5-4SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON THE SOUNDENVIRONMENT OF THE VACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREAAlternative andStressorNo ActionSurface ship noiseAircraft noiseWeapon and targetnoiseImpact ConclusionAlternative 1Surface ship noiseAircraft noiseWeapon and targetnoiseImpact ConclusionAlternative 2Surface ship noiseAircraft noiseWeapon and targetnoiseImpact ConclusionNEPA(U.S. Territory)Minor localized engine noise. Few tono sensitive receptors present.Short-term noise impacts during transitsto and from range areas.Very short-term noise impacts. Few tono sensitive receptors present.No significant impact to Study Areasound environment.Minor localized engine noise. Few tono sensitive receptors present.Short-term noise impacts during transitsto and from range areas.Very short-term noise impacts. Few tono sensitive receptors present.No significant impact to Study Areasound environment.Minor localized engine noise. Few tono sensitive receptors present.Short-term noise impacts during transitsto and from range areas.Very short-term noise impacts. Few tono sensitive receptors present.No significant impact to Study Areasound environment.Summary of Effects and Impact ConclusionExecutive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Minor at-sea noise. Few to no sensitivereceptors present.Short-term noise impacts, including sonicbooms. Few to no sensitive receptorspresent.Very short-term noise impacts. Few to nosensitive receptors present.No significant harm to Study Area soundenvironment.Minor at-sea noise. Few to no sensitivereceptors present.Short-term noise impacts, including sonicbooms. Few to no sensitive receptorspresent.Very short-term noise impacts. Few to nosensitive receptors present.No significant harm to Study Area soundenvironment.Minor at-sea noise. Few to no sensitivereceptors present.Short-term noise impacts, including sonicbooms. Few to no sensitive receptorspresent.Very short-term noise impacts. Few to nosensitive receptors present.No significant harm to Study Area soundenvironment.3-102 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.6 MARINE COMMUNITIESChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine Communities3.6.1 Introduction and Methods3.6.1.1 Regulatory FrameworkA community is an assemblage of plants and/or animal populations sharing a common environment andinteracting with each other and with the physical environment. This section specifically addresses thefollowing marine communities occurring within the VACAPES Study Area: plankton and macroalgae,benthic communities, seagrasses/submerged aquatic vegetation, and artificial habitats. Marine mammalsare addressed in Section 3.7, sea turtles are addressed in Section 3.8, fish and essential fish habitat areaddressed in Section 3.9, and seabirds and migratory birds are addressed in Section 3.10 of thisEIS/OEIS. Marine species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are addressed in Sections 3.7through 3.10, as applicable. No National Marine Sanctuaries are located within the Study Areaboundaries; therefore, they are not addressed in this EIS/OEIS.The various federal laws and regulations that afford protection and management of marine communitiesare primarily aimed at specific community components. These include ESA-listed species and designatedcritical habitat; marine mammals; federally managed fish species and essential fish habitat; and migratorybirds. Regulatory frameworks for these marine community components are presented in Appendix K.3.6.1.2 Assessment Methods and Data UsedEach alternative analyzed in this EIS/OEIS includes several warfare areas (e.g., Mine Warfare, AirWarfare, etc.) and most warfare areas include multiple types of training operations (e.g., MineNeutralization, Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise, etc.). Likewise, several activities (e.g., vesselmovements, aircraft overflights, weapons firing, etc.) are accomplished under each operation, and thoseactivities typically are not unique to that operation. For example, many of the operations involve Navyvessel movements and aircraft overflights. Accordingly, the analysis for marine communities isorganized by specific activity and/or stressors associated with that activity, rather than warfare area oroperations.The following general steps were used to analyze the potential environmental consequences of thealternatives to marine communities: Identify those aspects of the proposed action that are likely to act as stressors to biological resourcesby having a direct or indirect effect on the physical, chemical, and biotic environment of the StudyArea. As part of this step, the spatial extent of these stressors, including changes in that spatial extentover time, were identified. The results of this step identified those aspects of the proposed action thatrequired detailed analysis in this EIS/OEIS. Identify resources that may occur in the Study Area. Identify the biological resources that are likely to co-occur with the stressors in space and time, andthe nature of that co-occurrence (exposure analysis). Determine whether and how biological resources are likely to respond given their exposure andavailable scientific knowledge of their responses (response analysis). Determine the risks those responses pose to biological resources and the significance of those risks.Study AreaThe Study Area for marine communities is described in Section 1.5 and is shown in Figure 1.5-1.Data SourcesA comprehensive and systematic review of relevant literature and data has been conducted to completethis analysis for marine communities and to ensure that best available information was used. Of the3-103 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine Communitiesavailable scientific literature (both published and unpublished), the following types of documents wereutilized in the assessment: journals, books, periodicals, bulletins, Department of Defense operationsreports, EISs, Range Complex Management Plans, and other technical reports published by governmentagencies, private businesses, or consulting firms. The scientific literature was also consulted during thesearch for geographic location data on the occurrence of marine resources within the study area. Theprimary sources of information used to describe the affected environment for marine communities werethe Navy's Marine Resources Assessment reports for VACAPES OPAREA (DoN, 2008) and the lowerChesapeake Bay (DoN, 2007). The Marine Resources Assessment reports provide compilations of themost recent data and information on the occurrence of marine resources in the Study Area. Descriptionsof literature and data searches conducted during preparation of the Marine Resources Assessment reportsare described in detail in those documents.Factors Used to Assess EffectsThe factors used to assess significance of the effects to marine communities include the extent or degreeto which implementation of an alternative would result in permanent loss or long-term degradation of thephysical, chemical, and biotic components that make up a marine community.3.6.1.3 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsThe Navy used a screening process to identify aspects of the proposed action that could act as stressors tomarine communities. Navy subject matter experts analyzed the warfare areas and operations included inthe proposed action to identify specific activities that could act as stressors. Public and agency scopingcomments, previous environmental analyses, previous agency consultations, laws, regulations, ExecutiveOrders, and resource-specific information were also evaluated. This process was used to focus theinformation presented and analyzed in the affected environment and environmental consequences sectionsof this EIS/OEIS. As summarized in Table 3.6-1, potential stressors to marine communities includevessel movements (disturbance and collisions), aircraft overflights (disturbance), towed Mine Warfaredevices (strikes), non-explosive mine shape deployment/recovery (habitat alteration), non-explosivepractice munitions (NEPM) (strikes), underwater detonations and high explosive (HE) ordnance(explosions), and military expended materials (ordnance related materials, targets, chaff, self-protectionflares, and marine markers). The potential effects of these stressors on marine communities are analyzedin detail in Section 3.6.3.As discussed in Section 3.3 – Water Resources and Section 3.4 – Air Quality, some water and airpollutants would be released into the environment as a result of the proposed action. The analysespresented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 indicate that any increases in water or air pollutant concentrationsresulting from Navy training in the Study Area would be negligible and localized, and impacts to waterand air quality would not be significant. Based on the analyses presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, waterand air quality changes would have no effect or negligible effects on marine communities. Accordingly,the effects of water and air quality changes on marine communities are not addressed further in thisEIS/OEIS.3.6.2 Affected Environment3.6.2.1 Plankton and MacroalgaePlankton are organisms that float or drift with the sea and cannot maintain distribution against themovement of water masses (Parsons et al., 1984). Plankton include phytoplankton (plant-like/algae),zooplankton (animals), ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae, a form of zooplankton), andbacterioplankton (bacteria). In general, this group of organisms is very small or microscopic, although3-104 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesTABLE 3.6-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO MARINE COMMUNITIES 9Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Collisions)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Towed Mine Warfare DevicesNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and Operation Training AreasMine Warfare (MIW)Mine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM) Lower Chesapeake Bay Mine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM)W-50A/CW-386, W-72 Mine Neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (at sea)Missile Exercise (MISSILEX) (Air-to-Surface)Gunnery Exercise (GUNEX) (Air-to-Surface)W-386 (Air-K)W-72A (Air-3B)W-72A/B W-386 (Air-K) W-72A W-386 (Air-K), W-72A,W-72A (Air-1A), W-50C GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) Boat W-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) Ship W-386, W-72 9 For detailed information on the numbers and types of ordnance, specific weapons platforms, types of targets used and location of operations see Table 2.2-4 andAppendix D.3-105 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesTABLE 3.6-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO MARINE COMMUNITIES(Continued)Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Collisions)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Towed Mine Warfare DevicesNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and Operation Training AreasLaser Targeting W-386 (Air-K) Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure/Maritime Interception Operations (VBSS/MIO)- VACAPES OPAREAShipVBSS/MIO- Helo VACAPES OPAREA Air Warfare (AW)Air Combat Maneuver (ACM)W-72A(Air-2A/B, 3A/B)GUNEX (Air-to-Air) W-72A MISSILEX (Air-to-Air)W-386 (Air D, G, H, K)W-72A GUNEX (Surface-to-Air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (Surface-to-Air)W-386(Air D, G, H, K)Air Intercept Control (AIC) W-386, W-72 Detect to Engage (DTE) W-386, W-72 Strike Warfare (STW)HARM Missile ExerciseW-386(Air E,F,I,J) 3-106 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesTABLE 3.6-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO MARINE COMMUNITIES(Continued)Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Collisions)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Towed Mine Warfare DevicesNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and Operation Training AreasAmphibious Warfare (AMW)FIREX (Surface-to-Surface) withIntegrated Maritime Portable AcousticScoring and Simulator System (IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)Chaff Exercise- aircraftW-386 (7C/D, 8C/D), W-72 (1C1/2) (PreferredAreas), W-386 (5C/D)(Secondary Areas )W-386, W-386 (Air-K)and W-72 Chaff Exercise- ship W-386 and W-72 Flare Exercise- aircraftElectronic Combat (EC) OperationsaircraftW-386, W-386 (Air-K)and W-72W-386 (Air-K) EC Operations- ship VACAPES OPAREA Test and EvaluationShipboard Electronic Systems EvaluationFacility (SESEF) UtilizationVACAPES OPAREA 3-107 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine Communitiesthere are exceptions. Jellyfish and pelagic Sargassum, for example, are unable to move against thesurrounding currents and are considered part of the plankton group even though some jellyfish can growto approximately 10 ft in diameter.Phytoplankton are single-celled organisms that are similar to plants because they use sunlight andchlorophyll to photosynthesize. At the base of the marine food chain, phytoplankton are very importantto the overall productivity of the ocean. Their growth and distribution are influenced by several factors,the most important of which are temperature (Eppley, 1972), light (Yentsch and Lee, 1966), and nutrientconcentration (Goldman et al., 1979). Phytoplankton distribution is patchy, occurring in environmentsthat have optimal light, temperature, and nutrient conditions. In general, the concentration ofphytoplankton is higher in nearshore areas where there is input of nutrients from land sources. Incontinental shelf and slope waters, the concentration of phytoplankton generally decreases with distancefrom shore and with increasing bottom depth. Concentrations can be higher in upwellings and eddiesalong the Gulf Stream.Freshwater flow into the Chesapeake Bay largely determines gradients of light and nutrients, andtherefore phytoplankton, along the north–south axis of the Bay (Glibert et al., 1995). Due to increasedlevels of eutrophication in the Chesapeake Bay, there has been an increased abundance of phytoplankton(Harding and Perry, 1997; Kemp et al., 2005). Numerous harmful algal blooms have been reported in theChesapeake Bay and its tributaries; several appear to be related directly to nutrient inputs (Glibert etal., 2001; Heil, 2005; Kemp et al., 2005).Zooplankton are a taxonomically and structurally diverse group of aquatic animals. They range in sizefrom microscopic, unicellular organisms such as protozoans to large, multicellular organisms such asjellyfish (Wiebe et al., 1987). Although many are able to swim sizable distances at moderate speeds, theirlarge-scale horizontal distributions are determined by ocean currents and the suitability of the physical,chemical, and biological components of their environment. Zooplankton cannot photosynthesize and maybe herbivorous (consuming plants), carnivorous (consuming animals), detrivorous (consuming deadorganic material), or omnivorous (consuming a mixed diet). Examples of zooplankton includeforaminifera, pteropods, copepods, and myctophid fish. In offshore waters zooplankton are expected tobe most abundant in areas of high primary productivity, including the Gulf Stream and associatedupwellings and eddies.The Chesapeake Bay undergoes large seasonal changes in temperature, salinity, nutrient input, dissolvedoxygen, primary production, and predator abundance. As a result, local zooplankton populations changethroughout the year with different species becoming dominant during the differing seasons. Throughoutthe year, copepods tend to dominate the local zooplankton community (Heinle, 1966; White and Roman,1992) with polychaete, barnacle, and bivalve larvae dominating the community for short periods. Smallermicrozooplankton (20 to 200 μm in size) are generally dominated by protozoa and rotifers; however,copepod nauplii can be the most abundant members during spring and summer months.Ichthyoplankton are the eggs and larvae of fish found mainly in the upper 200 m of the water column.The eggs are passive and drift in the ocean along with the water currents. Most fish larvae have almost noswimming ability initially; however, half way through their development they are active swimmers.Ichthyoplankton are a relatively small but vital component of total zooplankton. They feed on smallerplankton and are prey for larger animals (Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 2007). Larval fish survivaland recruitment success of shelf-spawned estuarine species are likely tied to oceanographic conditions onthe inner shelf related to upwelling and downwelling conditions and plume dynamics, rather than tosimple, wind-driven recruitment mechanisms (Reiss and McConaugha, 1999). Total larval abundance ishigher within the frontal zone south of the Chesapeake Bay mouth than elsewhere on the shelf. Densitiescan exceed 300/100 m 3 (Reiss and McConaugha, 1999).3-108 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesPelagic Sargassum, or gulfweed, is a type of large, brown seaweed (algae) characterized by a brushy,highly branched structure with numerous leaf-like blades and berry-like gas-filled floats (pneumatocycts).Containing mostly oxygen, these floats maintain its pelagic existence. Sargassum often occurs inextensive floating mats on the surface. These mats are valuable habitat as they provide shelter and a foodsource for a diverse community of attached and swimming organisms. Throughout the Sargasso Sea andGulf Stream, these mats frequently aggregate into large windrows in response to wind forcing, or shearforcing along frontal boundaries (Coston-Clements et al., 1991). Pelagic Sargassum also occurs incontinental shelf waters of the U.S. Atlantic coast although no abundance or specific distributioninformation exists for the coastal region. The Gulf Stream is a dispersal mechanism for pelagicSargassum, so it is quite likely that Sargassum would be found within the VACAPES OPAREA(DoN, 2008). Large mats of Sargassum are reported from an area on the western boundary of the GulfStream where the cool waters from the Labrador Current and the warm waters of the Gulf Stream meet,resulting in a high concentration of many forms of marine life (Golder, 2004). Although it is possible, itis not likely for Sargassum to be found floating within the waters of the Chesapeake Bay (DoN, 2007).3.6.2.2 Benthic CommunitiesBenthic habitats are comprised of a variety of sediments, substrates, and marine life (infauna/flora,epifauna/flora, and demersal organisms) that are commercially and economically valuable. Benthicorganisms including crustaceans, echinoderms, anthozoans, annelids, mollusks, and ground fish play amajor role in altering underlying benthic substrates and in breaking down organic material which providessustenance for economically important species of pelagic fish (Sumich, 1988).Benthic or bottom-dwelling communities of organisms are strongly dependent on the type of bottomhabitat or substrate that exists in an area. While some benthic organisms burrow into soft bottomsediments, others attach themselves to any hard substrate available. Areas where the bottom is coveredby soft sediments, like those found throughout most of the Study Area (Figure 3.1-2) will largely bevacant of benthic organisms requiring hard substrate for attachment, growth, and development. Commonbenthic animals found in soft bottom communities in the Atlantic Ocean include polychaetes (worms),amphipods, archiannellids (worms), bivalves, and asteroids (star fish) (Brooks et al., 2004). Factorsaffecting distribution and abundance can include depth, sediment type, grain size, temperature, andsalinity. A literature review conducted by Brooks et al. (2004) found inconsistent trends concerning therelationship between benthic macrofaunal density and depth off the U.S. east coast.Live/Hard Bottom CommunitiesHard bottom is a type of benthic habitat that can support sessile fauna, flora, and demersal fish species(Jones et al., 1985; Cahoon et al., 1990). Hard bottom is made up of three-dimensional geologicstructures (topographic features) (i.e., rock outcroppings and hard fossil substrate) and is usually coveredwith a thin layer of soft sediments (Emery and Uchupi, 1972; LBG, 1999). Communities of livingorganisms found on hard bottom substrates include bryozoans, hard and soft corals, hydroids, anemones,encrusting algae, sponges, sea turtles, and commercial/recreational fishes (Jones et al., 1985; Cahoon etal., 1990). From Delaware Bay to Virginia there is not abundant hardbottom on the continental shelf butthere are artificial reefs and shipwrecks throughout (Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2) (Steimle and Zetlin, 2000).3-109 March 2009

Rappahanock River77°W76°W75°W74°W73°WRLINGTONWASHINGTON D. C.ANNAPOLISMilfordDelewareBayWildwoodALEXANDRIAbridgeWaldorfCambridgeDELAWARESeafordLewesRehoboth BeachAtlantic CityOPAREAPotomac RiverNAS Patuxent RiverLexington ParkPrincess AnneMARYLANDOcean City38°NVIRGINIACrisfieldNASAWallops IslandVACAPES OPAREA38°NChesapeakeBayYork RiverRGCape CharlesJames37°NFranklinRiverNEWPORT NEWSNS NorfolkNORFOLKPORTSMOUTHNABLittle CreekNAS OceanaDamNeck37°N12 nm Territorial Limit3 nm State LimitNORTH CAROLINAk36°NAlbemarle SoundNags Head36°N39°N39°NVACAPES OPAREALLEPamlico SoundCapeHatte rasNew Bern35°NMCAS Cherry PointHavelockPiney IslandCherry PointOPAREA35°NMoreheadCityATLANTICOCEAN77°W76°W75°W74°W73°WPAMDWVVANCSCNJDELegendVACAPES OPAREA3 nm Territorial Limit12 nm Territorial LimitShelf Break (180m Isobath)Non-Explosive Practice MunitionsHigh Explosive Bombs(No Action and Alternative 1 Only)0 10 20 40 60 80Nautical MilesHigh Explosive Bombs(Alternative 2 Only)FIREX with IMPASSUnderwater Detonation AreaHard Bottom CommunityHard Bottom CommunitiesPossible Hard BottomShipwrecksArtificial ReefBuoyLighthouseFigure 3.6-1Hard Bottom Communities,Artificial Reefs, andShipwrecks in EIS Study AreaVACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-110

76°WChesapeakeBayYork RiverWILLIAMSBURGMobjackBayMobjack BayCherrystoneCape CharlesYork SpitSouthBayCabbage PatchBack RiverJames RiverNEWPORT NEWS37°NEast OceanView37°NNaval Station NorfolkNORFOLKNABLittle CreekVIRGINIA BEACHPORTSMOUTHCHESAPEAKENAS OceanaSUFFOLK76°WPAMDWVVANCSCDENJLegendNaval and Marine BasesUrban AreasRoadsBathymetry-10m Isobath Contour-20m Isobath ContourChesapeake Bay ShipwrecksArtificial ReefRestored Reef (Approximate Location)Oyster Reef0 2.5 5 10 15 20Nautical MilesFigure 3.6-2Oyster Reefs,Restored Oyster Reefs,Artificial Reefs, andShipwrecks in theLower Chesapeake BayCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-111

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesIn general there have not been many comprehensive surveys of seafloor substrates conducted in thesouthern region of the Mid-Atlantic Bight except Wigley and Theroux (1981) conducted comprehensivemacrobenthic surveys on the shelf and slopes within the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Off the coast of NorthCarolina there is considerable hard bottom as documented by the Southeast Area Monitoring Program(SEAMAP, 2001). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 1975 also performed comprehensivebenthic and hard bottom surveys along the continental shelf from North Carolina to Florida (BLM, 1976).The hard bottom that was surveyed by the BLM consisted of sponges, hard and soft corals, and variousalgae species (BLM, 1976).Hard bottom of the VACAPES OPAREA consist of a variety of naturally-occurring and human-madesubstrates (Steimle and Zetlin, 2000) colonized by sessile and motile benthic organisms, and used bydemersal organisms. Benthic communities include hard and soft corals, hydroids, anemones, crustaceans,encrusting algae, sponges, sea turtles, and commercial/recreational fishes (Wigley and Theroux ,1981;Jones et al., 1985; Steimle and Zetlin, 2000). Throughout the U.S. Atlantic continental shelf, hard bottomsubstrates composed of lower Miocene marl are overgrown by encrusting algae and various calcareousorganisms (Emery and Uchupi, 1972). Benthic habitats in this area also include numerous sand and sandshellshoals which do not support high biotic diversity. Yet, between shoals, “valleys” carved by currentsdo support considerable benthic diversity such as annelids and bivalves (Cutter and Diaz, 2000).Shelf FaunaBetween, Delaware Bay and Maryland there is very little hard bottom (Figure 3.6-1)(Wigley and Theroux, 1981). Virginia’s shelf sediments are comprised mostly of shell and sand-shell(very little hard bottom) with various shoals scattered throughout supporting macrobenthic organismssuch as annelids, arthropods, and bivalves (Wigley and Theroux, 1981). North Carolina’s shelf sedimentsare mostly comprised of a mixture of sand-shell and sand with various shoals supporting macrobenthicspecies including hard and soft corals, anemones, hydrozoans, zoanthids, annelids, arthropods, mollusks,isopods, and amphipods (Wigley and Theroux, 1981). The continental shelf off the coast of NorthCarolina is narrow. The convergence of the cold water currents flowing down from the north and thewarm currents (i.e., Gulf Stream Current) flowing up from the south combined with steep topography offthe coast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina characterizes an area called “The Point”. The Point supports ahigh assemblage of commercial fish species (e.g., dolphinfish and wahoo) (SAFMC, 2003; NOAA,2006). A coral, coral reef, live, or hard bottom Habitat Area of Particular Concern is located at The Point(see Section 3.9 – Fish and Essential Fish Habitat and Figure 3.9-1).From Delaware to northern North Carolina, the benthic fauna (mostly annelids and ophiuroides) of theouter continental shelf and slope are not as dense as the inner and mid-shelf fauna (Wigley and Theroux,1981). The four submarine canyons within or near the VACAPES OPAREA (Wilmington, Baltimore,Washington, and Norfolk) (Figure 3.1-1) support numerous benthic species, including invertebrates, fish,and coral. In Baltimore Canyon Hecker et al. (1980) found crabs (Geryon quinquedens) and fish(Synaphobranchus kaupi) to be the most abundant deep sea organisms. The coral and sponge speciesfound in Baltimore canyon are discussed below.Coral (Hard and Soft) and Sponge DistributionsCorals are invertebrates in the phylum Cnidaria and classes Hydrozoa (fire and lace corals) and Anthozoa(subclasses Octocoralia and Hexacoralia) (Veron, 2000). Reef building corals are hexacorals and belongto the order Scleractinia. Octocorals include gorgonians, soft corals, and telastaceans. Corals existthroughout the worlds oceans at all depths (Veron, 2000). The most widely known corals are the truestony corals or scleractinians (i.e., hermatypic hard corals) which are coral reef frame builders in thetropics. Coral reefs are typically found in oligotrophic, shallow water (mostly up to a 50 m water depth)within a latitudinal range of 30°N and 30°S (Kaplan, 1982; Spalding et al., 2001). There are no tropicalcoral reefs within the VACAPES OPAREA or vicinity, but there are temperate corals found on the shelf3-112 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine Communitiesthat not only use photosynthesis as a mode of nutrition, but also consume zooplankton (Wigley andTheroux, 1981; Steimle and Zetlin, 2000). In addition deep sea corals are found along the continentalslope between 200 and 1,000 m in the VACAPES OPAREA and vicinity and form large coralcommunities (see the section on deep sea corals for more information) (Reed et al., 2006).Corals in the VACAPES OPAREA off North Carolina are protected from harvesting under the SouthAtlantic Fishery Management Council, fishery management plan for coral. This fishery managementplan states that: “The Coral, Coral Reef, and Live/Hardbottom Habitat Plan prohibits the harvest of stonycorals, sea fans, coral reefs, and live rock except as authorized for scientific and educational purposes(SAFMC, 2006)”. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has no management plans for corals(MAFMC, 2006). Coral, coral reef, live, or hard bottom Essential Fish Habitat has been identified in theOPAREA (see Section 3.9 Fish and Essential Fish Habitat and Figure 3.9-1).Temperate corals appear to be limited in their distribution by biotic factors such as competition forsubstrate with macroalgae (Miller, 1995). Temperate corals are capable of surviving at high latitudeswhere solar irradiance is much less compared to tropical areas because of the availability of greaterconcentrations of phytoplankton and nutrients. Indeed, hermatypic corals can grow in high latitudesbecause they can capture and digest zooplankton and possibly alter their photoadaptive responses byslowing their photosynthetic and respiration rates (Jaques et al., 1977). Corals reproduce through sexual(spawning) and asexual (fragmentation) reproduction. Spawning occurs seasonally (Szmant, 1986).Physical-environmental factors influencing the growth of temperate corals, is not as clearly understood asit is for tropical corals (Miller, 1995).Sponges (phylum Porifera) are found throughout the VACAPES OPAREA (see below for species anddistribution). Sponges are multicellular filter feeders (although some are carnivorous) that rely on thesupply of food (microscopic organisms) transported by water currents (UCMP, 2006). They live at alldepths, temperatures, and latitudes, and come in many shapes (including vaselike, tubular, spherical, andfingerlike shapes) (Kaplan, 1982). Sponges have a seasonal reproduction cycle and reproduce bothsexually and asexually (UCMP, 2006). Sponges are found in the VACAPES OPAREA (Wigley andTheroux, 1981; Steimle and Zetlin, 2000) and are not protected under the Mid-Atlantic FisheryManagement Council (MAFMC, 2006).Nature and Distribution of Corals and Sponges on the Inner and Mid-shelfThe VACAPES OPAREAhas some isolated patches of soft and hard corals, hydroids, zoanthids, and sponges that colonize rockoutcroppings, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks (Figure 3.6-1) (Steimle and Zetlin, 2000). The southernregion (northern North Carolina) of the VACAPES OPAREA contains more sponge and coral coverageas natural hard bottom increases and warmer water temperatures prevail (Wigley and Theroux, 1981).Seventeen species of hard corals are found from Cape Hatteras to Maine, only one species is shallow(northern star coral [Astrangia poculata]); the remaining species are found in water depths of 100 m anddeeper (Cairns and Chapman, 2001). The northern star coral is found in the shallow areas (1 to 35 m) ofthe VACAPES OPAREA and vicinity associated with hard bottom such as artificial reefs (Cairns andChapman, 2001; Figley, 2003).Whip coral (Leptogorgia virgulata) is a soft coral that grows in estuaries and coastal zones between 1 and20 m (Kaplan, 1988). Whip coral is common in the Chesapeake Bay (Kaplan, 1988). The most commonanthozoans in the VACAPES OPAREA are sea anemones (Metridium senile) and hydroids (Wigley andTheroux, 1981; Steimle and Zetlin, 2000). Sponges of the VACAPES OPAREA include Halichondriasp., Polmastia sp. and the loggerhead sponge, Spheciosponia vesparia (Wigley and Theroux, 1981;Steimle and Zetlin, 2000).3-113 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISDeep Sea Coral (Hard and Soft) and Sponge DistributionsChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesNature and Distribution of Corals and Sponges on the Outer Shelf and SlopeWhile shallow reefbuilding corals typically contain zooxanthellae which promote calcium carbonate accretion, deep seacorals do not. Nevertheless, localized accumulations of deep sea corals (scleractinians) can formextensive bioherms (mounds made of living organisms). Deep sea corals are found within a broad depthrange (39 to 3,383 m), in cool water (4 to 13ºC), and on top of canyons, plateaus, edges of the continentalshelf, and bases of slopes (Hecker et al., 1980; Freiwald et al., 2004). Deep sea corals occur as solitarycolonies, thickets, coppices, and banks (Stetson et al., 1962; Avent et al., 1977; Cairns and Stanley, 1981;Mullins et al., 1981). Deep sea corals are slow growing, can live thousands of years, and thrive in areasexposed to strong currents and upwelling (Freiwald et al., 2004). They reproduce sexually and asexuallyand grow as large as their skeleton can support (Freiwald et al., 2004). Deep sea coral bioherms supporthundreds of species of invertebrates and act as spawning and feeding grounds for commercially importantspecies of fish such as grouper (SAFMC, 1998). Like deep sea corals, deep sea sponges can livethousands of years (8,000+ yr) (Freiwald et al., 2004).Within the VACAPES OPAREA sponges exist in moderate densities between 1 and 24 m 2 along the outershelf and rise region (Wigley and Theroux, 1981). Finger sponge (Haliclona oculata) is found in thisregion on the inner shelf from 1 to 124 m and can grow to a height of 46 cm. In addition to sponges, softcorals (Alcyonaria) are found in abundance along the shelf, slope, and part of the rise (Watling andAuster, 2005). In water depths greater than 500 m alcyonaceans such as Anthomastus spp.,Acanthogorgia spp. Acanella spp., and Anthothela spp. are found within the VACAPES OPAREA.Paragorgia arborea and Primnoa resedaeformis are also found in the VACAPES OPAREA on the outerContinental shelf and upper slope (150 m) (Watling and Auster, 2005).Besides sponges and soft coral species, several hard coral species also exist on the outer continental shelfwithin the VACAPES OPAREA such as: Dasmosmilia lymani (depth range: 48 to 366 m), andDellocyathus italicus (403 to 2,634 m) (Cairns and Stanley, 1981). Past the outer shelf on the slope morehard coral species exist such as: Solenosmilia variabilis (280 to 2,165 m), Flabellum alabastrum (357 to1,977 m), Flabellum macandrewi (128 to 1,170 m), Flabellum angulare (2,266 to 3,186 m), and Javaniacailleli (400 to 2,165 m) (Cairns and Stanley, 1981).Submarine canyons in the VACAPES OPAREA provide habitat for deep sea corals and sponges(primarily at depths between 100 and 2,000 m) along with commercially important fish species (Watlingand Auster, 2005). Corals and sponges are found in the canyons despite heavy sedimentation and limitedsuitable substrates for attachment (Hecker et al., 1980). The upper slope fauna of Baltimore Canyon issimilar to the fauna found on the nearby shallow water shelf (Hecker et al., 1980). The most abundantcoral in the Baltimore Canyon is the small, white, sea pen (soft coral), Pennatula aculeata, which lives onsoft sediment between 100 and 300 m (Hecker et al., 1980). The lower slope fauna of Baltimore Canyon(1,400 m+) has similar species to the upper slope fauna and is mainly composed of soft corals(Alcyonaceans) (Hecker et al., 1980, 1983).Chesapeake Bay Benthic CommunitiesWith a surface area of over 3,350 nm 2 and a watershed that encompasses some 64,000 square miles inparts of six states, the Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuarine system in the United States (Kemp et al.,2005) and is an important national treasure. The Bay provides habitat to more than 3,600 species ofplants, fish, and other animals; is a commercial and recreational resource for more than 15 million peopleliving in the watershed; and yields approximately 500 million pounds of seafood annually (Morgan andOwens, 2001). Live/hard bottom habitats within the lower Chesapeake Bay consist mainly of oyster reefs(also known as oyster bars, oyster beds, and aquatic reefs) (CBP, 2003a). Oyster reefs vary in size fromclumps to large mounds (up to 33 feet in diameter) and consist of densely packed live and dead eastern3-114 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine Communitiesoysters (Crassostrea virginica) (Bahr and Lanier, 1981; CBP, 2003a; CBP, 2005). Oyster reefs formintertidal and subtidal habitats, and primarily occur from just below the mean low water level toapproximately 1.5 m above mean low water level. Oyster reefs can be found in 10 m of water, and insome cases down to a 30 m (Bahr and Lanier, 1981; Burrell, 1986; CBP, 2003a; CBP, 2005).Oyster reefs provide habitat for over 40 species of sessile and motile organisms ranging from juvenile toadult life stages, including the eastern oyster, other bivalves, many finfish species, and crustaceans (Bahrand Lanier, 1981; Meyer and Townsend, 2000; Rodney and Paynter, 2006). Two hundred years ago,some oyster reefs in the Bay were large enough to be navigational hazards. Yet, intensive mechanizedfishing practices, water pollution, and diseases have caused severe losses of oyster reef habitat in theChesapeake Bay. From 1884 to 1992, the oyster catch in the Bay declined by 98 percent (from615,000 tons to 12,000 tons). The native oyster population is currently believed to be 1 percent of what itwas 200 years ago (Rothschild et al., 1994; CBP, 2005).Within the lower Chesapeake Bay, oyster reefs are concentrated in the following general areas: JamesRiver, Elizabeth River, and Mobjack Bay (Figure 3.6-2) (Southworth et al., 2006; NOAA, 2007).However, no reefs are known or expected to occur in the immediate vicinity of the proposed MineWarfare Training Areas. Federal, state, and local partners in Maryland and Virginia are implementinglarge-scale native oyster restoration projects and are conducting oyster management research to addressnative oyster population declines. Various oyster restoration and management techniques, includingsanctuaries, managed reserves, and genetic rehabilitation, are being used in different parts of the Bay.Due to shortages of oyster shell for restoration projects, various alternative substrates are also beingconsidered (NOAA, 2008). Since the early 1990s, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)Shellfish Conservation Division, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and the Virginia Oyster HeritageProgram originated the construction of over 80 sanctuary oyster reefs in the Chesapeake Bay(VIMS, 2006). Sixteen of these reefs are within the Study Area in the East, North, Ware, York,Poquoson, Back, Elizabeth, Lafayette, and Lynnhaven Rivers, and Broad Bay (Berman et al., 2002;VIMS, 2006) (Figure 3.6-2), but none are located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Mine WarfareTraining Areas.3.6.2.3 Seagrasses/Submerged Aquatic VegetationSubmerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) refers to benthic macroalgae and seagrasses that grow in or attachto soft sediments in relatively shallow coastal, estuarine, and freshwater habitats. Macroalgae (sometimescalled seaweed) are multicellular, eukaryotic algae held to the substrate by holdfasts (root-like structures).Seagrasses are vascular, rooted flowering plants that are adapted to the saline environment and grow fullysubmerged (Dennison et al., 1993). Both seagrasses and macroalgae grow in often dense aggregationscalled beds. SAV beds are highly productive and provide habitat for many fish and wildlife species.Their importance to coastal and estuarine ecosystems has been acknowledged in the past 20 years. Bedsof SAV provide food, protective habitat, nutrient sinks, substrate for epiphytes, and sediment/shorelinestabilization (Hemminga and Duarte, 2000).The OPAREA and areas along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline do not support SAV communities. In theVACAPES Study Area, SAV habitats are limited to nearshore, shallow waters of the lower ChesapeakeBay where there is sufficient light and unconsolidated sediment to support their root systems(Figure 3.6-3). High salinity communities of eelgrass (Zostera marina) and widgeon grass (Ruppiamaritima) are most common in this area (CBP, 2006). Historically, the Chesapeake Bay has supportedmore than 200,000 acres of SAV habitat. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Bay experienced a largescale decline in SAV habitat that affected all major species and reduced overall SAV abundance by90 percent (Orth and Moore, 1984). SAV has been steadily recovering since the low point in 1984 when3-115 March 2009

76°WChesapeakeBayYork RiverMobjackBayCape CharlesSouthBayJames RiverNEWPORT NEWS37°N37°NNaval Station NorfolkNORFOLKNABLittle CreekVIRGINIA BEACHPORTSMOUTHCHESAPEAKENAS Oceana76°WPAMDWVVANCSCDENJLegendNaval and Marine BasesUrban AreasRoadsSeagrass Distribution0-10% cover (very sparse)10-40% cover (sparse)40-70% cover (moderate)70-100% cover (dense)0 2 4 8 12 16Figure 3.6-3Seagrasses /Submerged AquaticVegetation in theLower Chesapeake BayNautical MilesCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-116

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine Communitiesa survey in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries documented only 37,000 acres of SAV habitat.Since 1984, the restoration of SAV habitats through water quality control has been a cornerstone of Baymanagement policies (CBP, 1987). Due to the amount of light attenuation through the water column ofChesapeake Bay waters, SAV habitats are confined to shallow waters less than 2 m deep (Cerco et al.,2004). Therefore, SAV habitats are not expected to be present in the proposed lower Chesapeake BayMine Warfare Training Areas (Figure 3.6-3). Similarly, no tidal flats or tidal marshes are located in theimmediate vicinity of the proposed Mine Warfare Training Areas (DoN, 2007).3.6.2.4 Artificial HabitatsEpibenthic marine organisms (organisms that live on the top of the sea floor) such as algae, sponges,anemones, barnacles, and tunicates require a hard surface on which to attach, develop, and grow(Bohnsack et al., 1991). Since soft sediments such as sand dominate the sea floor of the Study Area,some of the only hard substrate available for attachment is artificial reefs. Artificial reefs may have beencreated accidentally (shipwrecks) or deliberately (National Artificial Reef Plan, Liberty Ship Act, andvarious state artificial reef programs [VMRC, 2001]). The National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984defined an artificial reef as a man-made structure created in the navigable waters of the United States or inwaters adjacent to the outer continental shelf (Seaman, 2000). Artificial reefs consist of such materials asrock or concrete rubble, decommissioned military vehicles, culverts, and even retired offshore oil/gasproduction platforms. The deliberate purpose underlying construction of artificial reefs is to create andenhance marine benthic habitat as well as help improve recreational fishing. An additional effect ofartificial reef construction has been broadening the distribution of some species into previouslyunoccupied habitat (Seaman, 2000).Whether purposefully or accidentally created, artificial reefs are so successful at enhancing habitat andimproving fishing that they are called fish havens on some nautical charts. In addition to recreationalfishing, artificial reefs and shipwrecks also support the recreational diving and commercial fishingindustries. Commercial use may involve setting pots or gillnets adjacent to reefs or trawling along theouter margins of a reef (Polovina, 1991). Commercial and recreational use of these areas varies fromstate to state, as do restrictions that regulate individual species. Some of the species found on artificialreefs in the VACAPES OPAREA area include black sea bass, monkfish, and scup.The states adjacent to the VACAPES OPAREA (North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware) haveeach established non-profit, artificial reef programs. Of the four states, Virginia has the largest artificialreef program, having created more reefs than any of its neighbors. There are 41 offshore artificial reefs(there seem to be fewer because of their proximity and map scale) within the VACAPES OPAREA,found primarily nearshore on the inner continental shelf (Figure 3.6-1). Shipwrecks also provideexcellent habitat for fishes and invertebrates. The VACAPES OPAREA contains 159 shipwrecks, mostof which are more widely dispersed on the continental shelf than the artificial reefs. The concentration ofshipwrecks off the North Carolina coast near Cape Hatteras and the Outer Banks gives evidence to whythis area has been coined, “the graveyard of the Atlantic.”The VMRC currently manages 22 artificial reefs in the Chesapeake Bay. There are seven artificial reefsites within the lower Chesapeake Bay portion of the Study Area, five off the western shore (MobjackBay, York Spit, Poquoson, Back River, East Ocean View) and two off the eastern shore (Cherrystone andCabbage Patch) (Figure 3.6-2, Table 3.6-2). While an artificial reef site is found near the PoquosonRiver, the VMRC provides no formal description of the site. Further, an artificial reef was established inMay 2007 southeast of the Bluefish Rock area (south of the Back River artificial reef site). Artificial reefsites of the lower Chesapeake Bay are intended to replenish the fish population of the Chesapeake Bay bycreating foraging habitat and shelter. Artificial reef material is colonized by suspension feeders (bivalves,barnacles) and macrofauna (polychaetes, crabs, and other crustaceans). Macrofauna living on artificial3-117 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine Communitiesreefs attract predatory fish including tautog, sea bass, amberjack, bluefish, king mackerel, cobia, stripedbass, and sharks (VMRC, 2007).TABLE 3.6-2ARTIFICIAL REEF SITES OF THE LOWER CHESAPEAKE BAYArtificial Reef Materials Used Depth (m) Profile (m)Mobjack Bay ReefConcrete pipe (1,250 tons); Bridge sections and rubble(8,202 tons)8 No dataYork Spit Reef Concrete pipe; reef balls; bridge sections (21,000 tons) 9 3Poquoson Reef No data No data No dataConcrete igloos (40 units); concrete tetrahedrons; concreteBack River Reef pipe; girders; clusters; concrete bridge sections and piles 7 2East Ocean ViewReefCherrystone ReefCabbage PatchSource: VMRC, 2007.(2,400 tons)Concrete igloos (40 units); concrete tetrahedrons; concretebridge rubble (1,000 tons)Concrete igloos; stacks of concrete pipe; concrete deckstations (Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel); tires inconcrete (2,900 units); concrete block (2,000 tons)Double T beams (36 units; each 60 ft in length); concreteslabs (28 units); concrete sinkers (187 tons); concreteblock (1,000 tons); reef balls (10 units)8 210 29 2Over 1,800 shipwrecks exist in the Chesapeake Bay (CBP, 2003b), 348 of which are located within thelower Chesapeake Bay Study Area (Figure 3.6-2) (Veridian Corporation, 2001). Most shipwrecks foundwithin the lower Chesapeake Bay lie in shallow waters (less than 10 m) and potentially support numerouslive benthic communities, including sessile and motile benthic organisms as well as fish.3.6.3 Environmental Consequences3.6.3.1 No Action AlternativeVessel MovementsMany of the ongoing and proposed operations within the VACAPES Study Area involve maneuvers byvarious types of surface ships, boats, and submarines (collectively referred to as vessels) (see Tables 2.2-4and 2.2-5). Currently, the number of Navy vessels operating in the Study Area varies based on trainingschedules and can range from 0 to about 10 vessels at any given time. Currently there are about 67surface ships and submarines homeported in Norfolk. Ship sizes range from 362 feet for a nuclearsubmarine (SSN) to 1,092 feet for a nuclear powered aircraft carrier (CVN). During training andoperations, speeds generally range from 10 to 14 knots. Operations involving vessel movements occurintermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a few hours up to two weeks. These operationsare widely dispersed throughout the OPAREA, which is a vast area encompassing 27,661 nm 2 (an areaapproximately the size of Indiana). Consequently, the density of ships within the Study Area at any giventime is extremely low (i.e., less than 0.0004 ships/nm 2 ). The Navy would log about 1,400 total steamingdays within the Study Area during a typical year under the No Action Alternative. Vessel movementswould have no direct effect on benthic communities or artificial habitats because Navy vessels areoperated in relatively deep waters and have navigational capabilities to avoid contact with these habitats.Seagrasses and SAV would not be directly affected by vessel movements because these communities donot occur in areas where Navy vessels are operated.Vessel movements would result in short-term and localized disturbances to water column and Sargassumhabitats. Phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton in the upper portions of the water column3-118 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine Communitiescould be displaced, injured, or killed by vessel and propeller movements. However, no measurableeffects on plankton populations would occur because the number of organisms exposed to vesselmovements would be low relative to total plankton biomass. Navy mitigation measures includeavoidance of large Sargassum mats by vessels (Chapter 5). Vessel movements in territorial waters wouldhave no significant impact on marine communities under the No Action Alternative. Similarly, vesselmovements in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to marine communities under theNo Action Alternative.Aircraft OverflightsVarious types of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters are used in training exercises throughout theVACAPES Study Area (see Chapter 2 and Appendix D). These aircraft overflights would produceairborne noise and some of this energy would be transmitted into the water. The potential effects ofaircraft noise on various marine community components are analyzed in detailed in Sections 3.7 – MarineMammals, 3.8 – Sea Turtles, and 3.9 – Fish and Essential Fish Habitat. Based on the analyses presentedin those sections, aircraft overflights over territorial waters would have no significant impact on marinecommunities under the No Action Alternative. In addition, aircraft overflights over non-territorial waterswould not cause significant harm to marine communities under the No Action Alternative.Towed Mine Warfare DevicesAs described in Chapter 2 and Appendix D, Mine Warfare Exercises conducted in the Study Area includethe use of various underwater mine detection and countermeasures systems that are towed through thewater by helicopters flying approximately 75 ft above the water at low airspeeds. Under the No ActionAlternative, this training would occur in the lower Chesapeake Bay, W-50C, and portions of theOPAREA within 45 nm of NS Norfolk (see Figures 2.2-1, 2.2-2, 2.2-3, and 2.2-4). The use of towedMine Warfare devices would result in short-term and localized disturbances to the water column, butbenthic habitats would not be affected because the devices are not towed on the bottom. Training withthese devices is conducted in areas where little or no Sargassum habitat is expected to occur. Plankton inthe upper portions of the water column could be displaced, injured, or killed by towed devices. However,no measurable effects on plankton populations would occur because the number of organisms exposedwould be low relative to total plankton biomass. The use of towed Mine Warfare devices in territorialwaters under the No Action Alternative would have no significant impact on marine communities.Furthermore, the use of towed Mine Warfare devices in non-territorial waters would not cause significantharm to marine communities.Non-explosive Mine Shape Deployment/RecoveryThe No Action Alternative does not include establishment of Mine Warfare Training Areas where nonexplosivemine shapes would be deployed.Non-explosive Practice MunitionsCurrent Navy operations in the Study Area include firing a variety of weapons and employ a variety ofNEPM, including bombs, missiles, naval gun shells, cannon shells, and small caliber ammunition. NEPMuse occurs in several training areas, but its use in state waters (0 to 3 nm from shore) is limited to R-6606(see Table 2.2-6 for a summary of ordnance use by training area). Ordnance use is not authorized in W-110, W-387, or the lower Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, NEPM use would have no effect on marinecommunities in these areas, including seagrasses, SAV, or oyster reefs.NEPM and associated shrapnel have the potential to directly strike marine life and marine habitats as ittravels through the water column and comes in contact with the sea floor. The potential effects of directNEPM strikes at or near the sea surface and within the water column are analyzed in Sections 3.7.3 –3-119 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesMarine Mammals, Section 3.8.3 - Sea Turtles, and Section 3.9.3 – Fish and Essential Fish Habitat. Thissection analyzes the potential effects of NEPM strikes on benthic communities and artificial habitats.The potential for NEPM strikes to adversely affect benthic communities depends on several factors,including the size and speed of the ordnance, water depth, the number of rounds delivered, the frequencyof training, and the presence/absence of sensitive benthic communities. While a broad area of benthichabitat could be exposed to direct NEPM strikes, the training exercises are intermittent and widelydispersed, which decreases the likelihood that a given area would be subjected to repeated exposure.With the exception of exercises that take place in R-6606 and W-50, NEPM use is limited to areas greaterthan 12 nm offshore in relatively deep water (greater than 20 m). NEPM velocity would rapidly decreaseupon contact with the water and as it travels through the water column. Consequently, NEPM strikeswould cause minimal physical damage to benthic habitat and any damage would be localized.The sand, clay, and silt substrates that are most prevalent in the OPAREA (Figure 3.1-2) support softbottom communities, which have lower diversity and abundance than live/hard bottom communities. Softbottom communities would be expected to recover quickly from any minor damage caused by NEPMstrikes through natural sedimentation processes and recolonization.Live hard bottom or artificial habitats would be vulnerable to damage from NEPM strikes. This isparticularly true for areas that support coral because coral is fragile and could be easily broken by contactwith larger objects such as non-explosive practice bombs. Repopulation and recovery of damaged hardbottom habitats would be relatively slow compared to soft bottom areas (NRC, 2002).Non-explosive practice bombs are the largest types of NEPM used in the OPAREA (Table 3.6-3). Basedon their weight, non-explosive practice bombs could cause damage if they struck sensitive hard bottomhabitat. A total of 295 non-explosive practice bombs would be dropped per year under the No ActionAlternative in W-72A/B. Assuming an even distribution, the relative concentration of non-explosivepractice bombs would be 2.1 per 100 nm 2 /year. Actual concentrations would vary based on specifictraining scenarios, but would nonetheless be extremely low. The maximum area of benthic habitataffected by non-explosive practice bomb strikes would be approximately 3,306 ft 2 per year or 33,060 ft 2over a ten-year period for the No Action Alternative, assuming that the area affected by a single nonexplosivepractice bomb would be two times its footprint (Table 3.6-4).TABLE 3.6-3SIZE OF NON-EXPLOSIVE PRACTICEBOMBS USED IN THE VACAPES OPAREANEPM TypeWeight(pounds)Length(inches)Diameter(inches)BDU-45 500 66 11 5.0MK-76 25 25 4 0.7MK-20 Rockeye Cluster (each1.326.52dispenses 247 bomblets)(per bomblet) (per bomblet) (per bomblet)MK-82 500 90 11 6.9MK-83 (1) 1,000 119 14 11.6MK-84 2,000 129 18 16.1(1) Alternative 2 only.(2) Length x diameter.Footprint(ft 2 ) (2)22.3(total per bomb)3-120 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesTABLE 3.6-4ESTIMATES OF MARINE BENTHIC HABITAT THAT WOULD BE AFFECTEDBY NON-EXPLOSIVE PRACTICE BOMBS IN THE VACAPES OPAREANEPM TypeNo Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2#/Yr Area Affected/Yr #/Yr Area Affected/Yr #/Yr Area Affected/Yr(ft 2 ) (1) (ft 2 ) (1) (ft 2 ) (1)BDU-45 45 450 50 500 50 500MK-76 185 259 204 286 204 286MK-20 51 2,275 56 2,498 68 3,033MK-82 7 97 8 110 158 2,180MK-83 0 0 0 0 50 1,160MK-84 7 225 7 225 7 225Total = 295 3,306 325 3,619 537 7,384(1) Assumed that the area of marine benthic habitat affected per year = footprint x 2 x #/yr.As shown in Figure 3.6-1, few artificial reefs are located in W-72-A/B and shipwrecks are widelydispersed. The probability of non-explosive practice bombs striking artificial habitats would be lowbecause these resources occupy a relatively small area.Based on the limited hard bottom OPAREA (Figure 3.6-1), it is possible that a small percentage of nonexplosivepractice bombs would strike in these areas. The potential for strikes to adversely affect benthiccommunities in these areas would depend on the substrate and community types found at the point ofphysical impact. Given the dispersed nature of the training activities, often patchy distribution ofcommunity types, and relatively limited bottom mapping data, it is not possible to accurately determinethe number of non-explosive practice bombs that would strike soft bottom habitats versus more sensitiveareas such as live hard bottom. Nonetheless, the total area of benthic habitat affected by non-explosivepractice bomb strikes would be small (about 3,306 ft 2 per year) and only a percentage of the total areaaffected (far less than 3,306 ft 2 per year) would be sensitive benthic habitat such as live hard bottom.Non-explosive practice bomb strikes could result in long-term, minor effects to benthic communities, butthe effects would be localized and no long-term changes to community structure or function would beexpected. NEPM strikes in territorial waters would have no significant impact on marine communitiesunder the No Action Alternative. Similarly, NEPM strikes in non-territorial waters would not causesignificant harm to marine communities under the No Action Alternative.Underwater Detonations and High Explosive OrdnanceExplosions that occur in the OPAREA are associated with training exercises that use HE ordnance,including bombs (BOMBEX), missiles (MISSILEX), and naval gun shells (FIREX with IMPASS, 5-inchHE rounds), as well as underwater detonations associated with Mine Neutralization training (MINEX).Underwater detonation and HE ordnance use is limited to specific training areas (see Table 2.2-7 for asummary of explosions by training area) and does not occur in the lower Chesapeake Bay or in statewaters of the Atlantic Ocean (0 to 3 nm from shore). The potential effects of explosions on marinemammals, sea turtles, fish, and their habitat are analyzed in Sections 3.7.3, 3.8.3, and 3.9.3, respectively.This section analyzes the potential effects of underwater detonations and HE ordnance use on benthiccommunities and artificial habitats. Underwater detonations and HE ordnance use do not occur innearshore waters and would not affect seagrasses, SAV, or oyster reefs.Explosions associated with BOMBEX, MISSILEX, and FIREX with IMPASS occur at or near the water'ssurface in areas where depths range from 20 m to over 2,900 m. Of the ordnance types used during theseexercises, the MK-84 HE bomb has the highest net explosive weight (NEW) (944.7 lbs). Using theequation presented in Swisdak (1978), the maximum radius of the gas bubble produced by a MK-84 HE3-121 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine Communitiesbomb explosion would be about 11.9 m. The gas bubble would not extend to the bottom based on theminimum water depth (20 m) and a detonation depth of 1 m below the surface. Likewise, the gas bubblesproduced by other ordnance types used in BOMBEX, MISSILEX, and FIREX would not extend to thebottom because they have smaller NEWs. Therefore, explosions during BOMBEX, MISSILEX, andFIREX are expected to have minimal effects on benthic communities and artificial habitats. Theseexplosions would result in short-term and localized disturbances to the water column. Plankton in theimmediate vicinity of explosions would be injured or killed. However, no measurable effects on planktonpopulations would occur because the number of organisms affected would be low relative to the totalplankton biomass. Effects of explosions on Sargassum would be minimal because Navy mitigationmeasures (see Chapter 5) include avoidance of Sargassum mats.Underwater detonations would be associated with mine neutralization training exercises, where explosiveordnance disposal detachments place explosive charges next to or on non-explosive practice mines.Under the No Action Alternative 12 charges with 20-lbs NEW would be detonated per year in W-50,where water depths range from about 15 to 20 m. Some charges would be detonated directly on thebottom and the others would be detonated in the water column.The Navy does not set explosive charges within 1,000 ft of known live/hard bottom, artificial reefs, andshipwrecks (see Chapter 5 for detailed description of Navy mitigation measures). Therefore, onlyunconsolidated, soft bottom habitats would be exposed to impacts from underwater detonations.Cratering of soft bottom sea floor and water column disturbance would result from underwaterdetonations. For a specific size of explosive charge, crater depths and widths would vary depending ondepth of the charge and sediment type, but crater dimensions generally decrease as bottom depthincreases. A 20-lbs NEW charge detonated on the bottom can create depressions in the substrate up to 4to 5 ft in diameter and 1 ft deep (DoN, 2000). Assuming a worst-case scenario where all underwaterdetonations occurred on the bottom, about 151 to 235 ft 2 of benthic habitat would be affected per year.Crater effects are usually temporary in sand and mud bottoms. Only short-term increases in turbidity andresuspension of bottom sediments would be expected. Repopulation of displaced sediments should berelatively rapid compared to hard bottom areas (NRC, 2002).Underwater detonations and HE ordnance use in territorial waters would have no significant impact onmarine communities under the No Action Alternative. Furthermore, underwater detonations and HEordnance use in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to marine communities under theNo Action Alternative.Military Expended MaterialsThe Navy uses a variety of military expended materials during training exercises conducted in theOPAREA. The types and quantities of military expended materials used and information regarding fateand transport of these materials within the marine environment are discussed in Section 3.2 (HazardousMaterials and Hazardous Waste Section). Soft bottom benthic communities throughout the OPAREAwould be exposed to military expended materials because use is widely dispersed and a majority of thematerials rapidly sink to the sea floor. The analysis presented in Section 3.2 indicates that militaryexpended materials would become encrusted by natural processes and incorporated into the sea floor,with no significant accumulations in any particular area and no negative effects to water quality. Some ofthe materials are the same as those often used in artificial reef construction (e.g., concrete and metal) andwould be colonized by benthic organisms that prefer hard substrate. This colonization could result inlocalized increases in species richness and abundance, but no significant changes in community structureor function would be anticipated based on the limited amount and dispersed nature of the materials.Military expended material use in territorial waters would have no significant impact on marinecommunities under the No Action Alternative. Furthermore, military expended material use in non-3-122 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine Communitiesterritorial waters would not cause significant harm to marine communities under the No ActionAlternative.3.6.3.2 Alternative 1Vessel MovementsVessel movements would increase by about 1.4 percent per year in the VACAPES Study Area underAlternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). These changes would result in increased potential for phytoplankton,zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton in the upper portions of the water column to be displaced, injured, orkilled by vessel and propeller movements compared to baseline conditions. However, no measurableeffects on plankton populations would occur because the number of organisms exposed to vesselmovements would continue to be low relative to total plankton biomass. Navy mitigation measureswould continue to include avoidance of large Sargassum mats by vessels (Chapter 5). Vessel movementsin territorial waters would have no significant impact on marine communities under Alternative 1.Similarly, vessel movements in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to marinecommunities under Alternative 1.Aircraft OverflightsAlternative 1 would include a 10 percent increase in fixed-wing aircraft sorties per year and an 88 percentincrease in helicopter sorties per year in the VACAPES Study Area (Table 2.2-5). A majority of the newhelicopter sorties would occur over the lower Chesapeake Bay and in W-50. The potential affects ofaircraft noise on various marine community components are analyzed in detailed in Sections 3.7 – MarineMammals, 3.8 – Sea Turtles, and 3.9 – Fish and Essential Fish Habitat. Based on the analyses presentedin those sections, aircraft overflights over territorial waters would have no significant impact on marinecommunities under Alternative 1. In addition, aircraft overflights over non-territorial waters would notcause significant harm to marine communities under Alternative 1.Towed Mine Warfare DevicesTowed Mine Warfare device sorties would increase by 75 percent per year under Alternative 1. Similarto the No Action Alternative, use of towed Mine Warfare devices under Alternative 1 would result inshort-term and localized disturbances to the water column, but benthic habitats would not be affectedbecause the devices are not towed on the bottom. Training with these devices would be conducted inareas where little or no Sargassum habitat is expected to occur. Plankton in the upper portions of thewater column could be displaced, injured, or killed by towed devices. However, no measurable effects onplankton populations would occur because the number of organisms exposed would be low relative tototal plankton biomass. The use of towed Mine Warfare devices in territorial waters under Alternative 1would have no significant impact on marine communities. Furthermore, the use of towed Mine Warfaredevices in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to marine communities.Non-explosive Mine Shape Deployment/RecoveryAs discussed in Chapter 2, a Mine Warfare Training Area would be designated in W-50C underAlternative 1 (Figure 2.2-1). This section addresses potential effects on marine communities associatedwith establishing and maintaining this training area (i.e., non-explosive mine shapedeployment/recovery). The effects of conducting training exercises in this area are the same as thoseanalyzed under aircraft overflights and towed Mine Warfare devices.As discussed in Chapter 2, the mine shape assembly would include a concrete anchor, mooring line (steelcable or chain), and the mine shape. In some cases the entire assembly (mine shape, mooring line, andanchor) would be deployed concurrently from a boat or aircraft and recovered immediately following theexercise. In other cases concrete anchors would be permanently placed on the sea floor and divers would3-123 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine Communitiesattach the mooring lines and mine shapes for specific exercises. Mine shapes and mooring lines thatwould not pose a navigation or fishing hazard could be left in place for up to six months. Up to 20permanent concrete anchors would be placed in the proposed Mine Warfare Training Area in W-50C(Figure 2.2-2).The process of deploying and recovering mine shape assemblies would result in localized disturbances tobenthic habitat. Benthic organisms could be crushed, injured, or killed by the impact of the concreteanchor. Approximately 6.25 ft 2 of benthic habitat would be disturbed when a concrete anchor makescontact with the sea floor. A similar size area would be affected when a concrete anchor is recovered.The total area affected per year is not expected to exceed 125 ft 2 based on 20 deployments/recoveries peryear. Soft bottom substrates occur in the proposed training area. Mine shapes would not be deployed inareas with live/hard bottom, oyster reefs, SAV, artificial reefs, or shipwrecks. Therefore, disturbedbenthic areas would be expected to quickly recover through natural sedimentation processes. The processof divers attaching mooring lines and mines shapes to permanent concrete anchors would not be expectedto result in more than minor habitat disturbances.The permanent concrete anchors would result in minor, long-term changes to benthic habitat. Eachpermanent anchor would provide about 31.25 ft 2 of exposed hard surface area. Similar to an artificial reefstructure, the anchors would be colonized overtime by benthic organisms that prefer hard substrate andwould provide structure that could attract some species of fish. Localized increases in species richnessand abundance could occur, but significant changes in community structure or function would not beanticipated based on the small surface area provided (625 ft 2 for 20 anchors) and the dispersed nature ofthe anchors. Mine shape deployment/recovery in territorial waters under Alternative 1 would have nosignificant impact on marine communities. Mine shape deployment/recovery would not take place innon-territorial waters and would have no effect on marine communities in non-territorial waters.Non-explosive Practice MunitionsThe amount of NEPM used in the VACAPES Study Area would increase under Alternative 1 (Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-6). The number of non-explosive practice bombs dropped in W-72A/B would increase from295 to 325 per year (Table 3.6-3). These changes would result in increased potential for NEPM to strikebenthic communities and artificial habitats compared to baseline conditions. NEPM velocity wouldrapidly decrease upon contact with the water and as it travels through the water column. Consequently,NEPM strikes would cause little or no physical damage to soft bottom benthic habitat and any damagewould be localized.The area affected by non-explosive practice bombs would increase under Alternative 1. The relative nonexplosivepractice bomb concentration would increase from 2.1 to 2.3 per 100 nm 2 /year in W-72A/B.The probability of non-explosive practice bombs striking hard bottom or artificial habitats would increaseunder Alternative 1. However, the total area of benthic habitat affected would continue to be small. Asshown in Table 3.6-4, the maximum area of benthic habitat affected by non-explosive practice bombstrikes would increase from 3,306 ft 2 per year to 3,619 ft 2 per year or 36,190 ft 2 over a ten-year period.Only a percentage of the total area affected (far less than 3,619 ft 2 per year) would be sensitive benthichabitat such as live hard bottom. Non-explosive practice bomb strikes under Alternative 1 could result inlong-term, minor effects to benthic communities, but the effects would be localized and no long-termchanges to community structure or function would be expected. NEPM strikes in territorial waters wouldhave no significant impact on marine communities under Alternative 1. Similarly, NEPM strikes in nonterritorialwaters would not cause significant harm to marine communities under Alternative 1.3-124 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISUnderwater Detonations and High Explosive OrdnanceChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesThe number and location of explosions that would occur under Alternative 1 would be the same as the NoAction Alternative, with the exception of increases in Hellfire missiles and 20-lb NEW underwaterdetonations (Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-7). The number of explosions associated with Hellfire missile usewould increase from 30 to 60 per year under Alternative 1. These explosions would continue to occur ator near the water's surface in relatively deep water (Air-K and W-72A). As discussed for the No ActionAlternative, explosions at or near the surface are expected to have minimal effects on benthiccommunities and artificial habitats because the explosions' gas bubbles would not reach the bottom. Theseexplosions would result in short-term and localized disturbances to the water column. Plankton in theimmediate vicinity of explosions would be injured or killed. However, no measurable effects on planktonpopulations would occur because the number of organisms affected would be low relative to the totalplankton biomass. Effects of explosions on Sargassum would be minimal because Navy mitigationmeasures (see Chapter 5) include avoidance of Sargassum mats.The number of explosions associated with 20-lb NEW underwater detonations would increase from 12 to24 in W-50 under Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-7). These changes would result in increased potential forexplosions to disrupt soft bottom benthic habitat compared to baseline conditions. However, the amountof habitat affected would continue to be small (about 302 to 470 ft 2 per year) and the effects would beshort-term and localized. Explosions in territorial waters would have no significant impact on marinecommunities under Alternative 1. Furthermore, explosions in non-territorial waters would not causesignificant harm to marine communities under Alternative 1.Military Expended MaterialsThe amount of military expended materials entering the marine environment would increase in the StudyArea under Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). These changes would result in increased exposure of benthiccommunities to military expended materials. However, the analysis presented in Section 3.2 indicatesthat no significant accumulations of expended materials would occur in any particular area and waterquality would not be negatively affected by military expendable materials. Some of the materials wouldbe colonized by benthic organisms that prefer hard substrate, resulting in localized increases in speciesrichness and abundance. No significant changes in community structure or function would be anticipatedbased on the limited amount and dispersed nature of the materials. Military expended material use interritorial waters would have no significant impact on marine communities under Alternative 1.Furthermore, military expended material use in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm tomarine communities under Alternative 1.3.6.3.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)Vessel MovementsVessel movements that would occur under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). Therefore, the analysis presented above for Alternative 1 is applicable to Alternative 2. Vesselmovements in territorial waters would have no significant impact on marine communities underAlternative 2. Similarly, vessel movements in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm tomarine communities under Alternative 2.Aircraft OverflightsAlternative 2 would include a 4.5 percent increase in fixed-wing aircraft sorties per year and a 92 percentincrease in helicopter sorties per year in the VACAPES Study Area (Table 2.2-5). A majority of the newhelicopter sorties would occur over the lower Chesapeake Bay and in W-50. The potential affects ofaircraft noise on various marine community components are analyzed in detailed in Sections 3.7 – Marine3-125 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesMammals, 3.8 – Sea Turtles, and 3.9 – Fish and Essential Fish Habitat. Based on the analyses presentedin those sections, aircraft overflights over territorial waters would have no significant impact on marinecommunities under Alternative 2. In addition, aircraft overflights over non-territorial waters would notcause significant harm to marine communities under Alternative 2.Towed Mine Warfare DevicesTowed Mine Warfare device sorties would increase by 78 percent per year under Alternative 2. Similarto the No Action Alternative, use of towed Mine Warfare devices under Alternative 2 would result inshort-term and localized disturbances to the water column, but benthic habitats would not be affectedbecause the devices are not towed on the bottom. Training with these devices is conducted in areas wherelittle or no Sargassum habitat is expected to occur. Plankton in the upper portions of the water columncould be displaced, injured, or killed by towed devices. However, no measurable effects on planktonpopulations would occur because the number of organisms exposed would be low relative to totalplankton biomass. The use of towed Mine Warfare devices in territorial waters under Alternative 2 wouldhave no significant impact on marine communities. Furthermore, the use of towed Mine Warfare devicesin non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to marine communities.Non-explosive Mine Shape Deployment/RecoveryAs discussed in Chapter 2, Mine Warfare Training Areas would be designated in W-50A/C, W-72, W-386, and the lower Chesapeake Bay under Alternative 2 (Figures 2.2-1 through 2.2-4). This sectionaddresses potential effects on marine communities associated with establishing and maintaining thesetraining areas (i.e., non-explosive mine shape deployment/recovery). The effects of conducting trainingexercises in these areas are the same as those analyzed under aircraft overflights, towed Mine Warfaredevices, and underwater detonations and HE ordnance (for W-50C only).As discussed in Chapter 2, the mine shape assembly would include a concrete anchor, mooring line (steelcable or chain), and the mine shape. In some cases the entire assembly (mine shape, mooring line, andanchor) would be deployed concurrently from a boat or aircraft and recovered immediately following theexercise. In other cases concrete anchors would be permanently placed on the sea floor and divers wouldattach the mooring lines and mine shapes for specific exercises. Mine shapes and mooring lines thatwould not pose a navigation or fishing hazard could be left in place for up to six months. Approximately20 permanent concrete anchors would be placed in the proposed Mine Warfare Training Area in W-50A/C and approximately 60 would be placed in the proposed training areas in the lower ChesapeakeBay.The process of deploying and recovering mine shape assemblies would result in localized disturbances tobenthic habitat. Benthic organisms could be crushed, injured, or killed by the impact of the concreteanchor. Approximately 6.25 ft 2 of benthic habitat would be disturbed when a concrete anchor makescontact with the sea floor. A similar size area would be affected when a concrete anchor is recovered.The total area affected per year is not expected to exceed 1,700 ft 2 based on 270 deployments/recoveriesper year. Soft bottom substrates occur in the proposed training areas. Mine shapes would not bedeployed in areas with live/hard bottom, oyster reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, artificial reefs, orshipwrecks. Therefore, disturbed benthic areas would be expected to quickly recover through naturalsedimentation processes. The process of divers attaching mooring lines and mines shapes to permanentconcrete anchors would not be expected to result in more than minor habitat disturbances.The permanent concrete anchors would result in minor, long-term changes to benthic habitat. Eachpermanent anchor would provide about 31.25 ft 2 of exposed hard surface area. Similar to an artificial reefstructure, the anchors would be colonized overtime by benthic organisms that prefer hard substrate andwould provide structure that could attract some species of fish. Localized increases in species richness3-126 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine Communitiesand abundance could occur, but significant changes in community structure or function would not beanticipated based on the small surface area provided (625 ft 2 for 20 anchors in W-50A/C and 1,875 ft 2 for60 anchors in the lower Chesapeake Bay) and the dispersed nature of the anchors. Mine shapedeployment/recovery in territorial waters under Alternative 2 would have no significant impact on marinecommunities. Furthermore, mine shape deployment/recovery in non-territorial waters would not causesignificant harm to marine communities under Alternative 2.Non-explosive Practice MunitionsThe amount of NEPM used in the VACAPES Study Area would increase under Alternative 2 (Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-6). The number of non-explosive practice bombs dropped in W-72A/B would increase from295 to 537 per year (Table 3.6-3). These changes would result in increased potential for NEPM to strikebenthic communities and artificial habitats compared to baseline conditions. NEPM velocity wouldrapidly decrease upon contact with the water and as it travels through the water column. Consequently,NEPM strikes would cause little or no physical damage to soft bottom benthic habitat and any damagewould be localized.The area affected by non-explosive practice bombs would increase under Alternative 2. The relative nonexplosivepractice bomb concentration would increase from 2.1 to 3.8 per 100 nm 2 /year in W-72A/B.The probability of non-explosive practice bombs striking hard bottom or artificial habitats would increaseunder Alternative 2. However, the total area of benthic habitat affected would continue to be small. Asshown in Table 3.6-4, the maximum area of benthic habitat affected by non-explosive practice bombstrikes would increase from 3,306 ft 2 per year to 7,384 ft 2 per year or 73,840 ft 2 over a ten-year period.Only a percentage of the total area affected (far less than 7,384 ft 2 per year) would be sensitive benthichabitat such as live hard bottom. Non-explosive practice bomb strikes under Alternative 2 could result inlong-term, minor effects to benthic communities, but the effects would be localized and no long-termchanges to community structure or function would be expected. NEPM strikes in territorial waters wouldhave no significant impact on marine communities under Alternative 2. Similarly, NEPM strikes in nonterritorialwaters would not cause significant harm to marine communities under Alternative 2.Underwater Detonations and High Explosive OrdnanceAs summarized in Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-7, underwater detonations and HE ordnance use under Alternative2 would be the same as Alternative 1, with the following exceptions: The number of HE bombs used would decrease from 465 to 20 per year. Use of the MK-103 system in W-50A and C would result in 50 underwater explosions per year (0.002-lbs NEW). Use of the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) in W-50C would result in 30 underwaterexplosions (3.24-lbs NEW).Water column disturbances and plankton mortality associated with explosions under Alternative 2 wouldbe substantially lower than the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 based on the reduction in HEbomb use.Water column disturbances and plankton mortality would increase in W-50C under Alternative 2 basedon underwater detonations associated with the MK-103 and AMNS Mine Warfare devices. Plankton inthe immediate vicinity of explosions would be injured or killed. However, no measurable effects onplankton populations would occur because the number of organisms affected would be low relative to thetotal plankton biomass. Underwater detonations associated with the MK-103 and AMNS Mine Warfaredevices are not expected to affect benthic habitats because the explosions occur in the water column andthe charges are relatively small.3-127 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesThe effects of explosions associated with FIREX with IMPASS, MISSILEX, and 20-lb NEW underwaterdetonations under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1. FIREX with IMPASS andMISSILEX would continue to result in short-term and localized water column disturbances and planktonmortality. Underwater detonations would continue to impact up to 302 to 470 ft 2 per year of soft bottombenthic habitat, and the effects would be short-term and localized. Overall, the impacts from underwaterdetonations and HE ordnance use for Alternative 2 would be substantially lower than the No ActionAlternative and Alternative 1 based on the reduction in HE bomb use. Underwater detonations and HEordnance use in territorial waters would have no significant impact on marine communities underAlternative 2. Furthermore, underwater detonations and HE ordnance use in non-territorial waters wouldnot cause significant harm to marine communities under Alternative 2.Military Expended MaterialsThe amount of military expended materials entering the marine environment under Alternative 2 wouldbe the same as Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). Therefore, the analysis presented above for Alternative 1 isapplicable to Alternative 2. Military expended material use in territorial waters would have no significantimpact on marine communities under Alternative 2. Furthermore, military expended material use in nonterritorialwaters would not cause significant harm to marine communities under Alternative 2.3.6.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThe analysis presented above indicates that the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2would not result in unavoidable significant adverse effects to marine communities.3.6.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)As summarized in Table 3.6-5, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would have nosignificant impact on marine communities in territorial waters. Furthermore, the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would not cause significant harm to marine communities in nonterritorialwaters.TABLE 3.6-5SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON MARINECOMMUNITIES IN THE VACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREASummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative andStressorNo ActionVessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed Mine WarfareDevicesMine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-ExplosivePractice MunitionsNEPA(U.S. Territory)Localized disturbance, injury, andmortality to plankton. No long-termpopulation or community-level effects.Potential exposure to aircraft noise. Nolong-term population or community-leveleffects.Short-term localized disturbance to watercolumn. No long-term population orcommunity-level effects.No effect.Localized disturbance to benthiccommunities. No long-term populationor community-level effects.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Localized disturbance, injury, andmortality to plankton. No long-termpopulation or community-level effects.Potential exposure to aircraft noise. Nolong-term population or community-leveleffects.Short-term localized disturbance to watercolumn. No long-term population orcommunity-level effects.No effect.Localized disturbance to benthiccommunities. No long-term populationor community-level effects.3-128 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesTABLE 3.6-5SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON MARINECOMMUNITIES IN THE VACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREA (Continued)Summary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative andStressorUnderwaterDetonations and HighExplosive OrdnanceMilitary ExpendedMaterialsImpact ConclusionAlternative 1Vessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed Mine WarfareDevicesMine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-ExplosivePractice MunitionsUnderwaterDetonations and HighExplosive OrdnanceMilitary ExpendedMaterialsImpact ConclusionNEPA(U.S. Territory)Short-term, localized disturbance to softbottom benthic communities. Localizeddisturbance, injury, and mortality toplankton. No long-term population orcommunity-level effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of expended materials insoft bottom benthic communities. Nolong-term changes in communitystructure or function.No significant impact to marinecommunities.Localized disturbance, injury, andmortality to plankton. Slight increasecompared to No Action. No long-termpopulation or community-level effects.Potential exposure to aircraft noise.Slight increase compared to No Action.No long-term population or communityleveleffects.Short-term localized disturbance to watercolumn. Slight increase compared to NoAction. No long-term population orcommunity-level effects.Short-term and localized disturbance ofbenthic habitat. Creation of small areasof hard bottom habitat. No long-termpopulation or community-level effects.Localized disturbance to benthiccommunities. Slight increase comparedto No Action. No long-term populationor community-level effects.Short-term, localized disturbance to softbottom benthic communities. Localizeddisturbance, injury, and mortality toplankton. Slight increase compared to NoAction. No long-term population orcommunity-level effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of expended materials insoft bottom benthic communities. Slightincrease compared to No Action. Nolong-term changes in communitystructure or function.No significant impact to marinecommunities.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Short-term, localized disturbance to softbottom benthic communities. Localizeddisturbance, injury, and mortality toplankton. No long-term population orcommunity-level effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of expended materials insoft bottom benthic communities. Nolong-term changes in communitystructure or function.No significant harm to marinecommunities.Localized disturbance, injury, andmortality to plankton. Slight increasecompared to No Action. No long-termpopulation or community-level effects.Potential exposure to aircraft noise.Slight increase compared to No Action.No long-term population or communityleveleffects.Short-term localized disturbance to watercolumn. Slight increase compared to NoAction. No long-term population orcommunity-level effects.No effect.Localized disturbance to benthiccommunities. Slight increase comparedto No Action. No long-term populationor community-level effects.Short-term, localized disturbance to softbottom benthic communities. Localizeddisturbance, injury, and mortality toplankton. Slight increase compared to NoAction. No long-term population orcommunity-level effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of expended materials insoft bottom benthic communities. Slightincrease compared to No Action. Nolong-term changes in communitystructure or function.No significant harm to marinecommunities.3-129 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environmentand Environmental Consequences3.6 – Marine CommunitiesTABLE 3.6-5SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON MARINECOMMUNITIES IN THE VACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREA (Continued)Alternative andStressorAlternative 2Vessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed Mine WarfareDevicesMine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-ExplosivePractice MunitionsUnderwaterDetonations and HighExplosive OrdnanceMilitary ExpendedMaterialsImpact ConclusionSummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionNEPA(U.S. Territory)Localized disturbance, injury, andmortality to plankton. Slight increasecompared to No Action. No long-termpopulation or community-level effects.Potential exposure to aircraft noise.Slight increase compared to No Action.No long-term population or communityleveleffects.Short-term localized disturbance to watercolumn. Slight increase compared to NoAction. No long-term population orcommunity-level effects.Short-term and localized disturbance ofbenthic habitat. Creation of small areasof hard bottom habitat. No long-termpopulation or community-level effects.Localized disturbance to benthiccommunities. Slight increase comparedto No Action. No long-term populationor community-level effects.Short-term, localized disturbance to softbottom benthic communities. Localizeddisturbance, injury, and mortality toplankton. Slight increase compared to NoAction. No long-term population orcommunity-level effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of expended materials insoft bottom benthic communities. Slightincrease compared to No Action. Nolong-term changes in communitystructure or function.No significant impact to marinecommunities.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Localized disturbance, injury, andmortality to plankton. Slight increasecompared to No Action. No long-termpopulation or community-level effects.Potential exposure to aircraft noise.Slight increase compared to No Action.No long-term population or communityleveleffects.Short-term localized disturbance to watercolumn. Slight increase compared to NoAction. No long-term population orcommunity-level effects.Short-term localized disturbance to watercolumn. Slight increase compared to NoAction. No long-term population orcommunity-level effects.Localized disturbance to benthiccommunities. Slight increase comparedto No Action. No long-term populationor community-level effects.Short-term, localized disturbance to softbottom benthic communities. Localizeddisturbance, injury, and mortality toplankton. Decrease in HE BOMBEXcompared to No Action. No long-termpopulation or community-level effects.Long-term, minor, and localizedaccumulation of expended materials insoft bottom benthic communities. Slightincrease compared to No Action. Nolong-term changes in communitystructure or function.No significant harm to marinecommunities.3-130 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.7 MARINE MAMMALSChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammals3.7.1 Introduction and Methods3.7.1.1 Regulatory FrameworkMarine Mammal Protection ActThe Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 established, with limited exceptions, a moratoriumon the “taking” of marine mammals in waters or on lands under U.S. jurisdiction. The act furtherregulates “takes” of marine mammals in the global commons (i.e., the high seas) by vessels or personsunder U.S. jurisdiction. The term “take,” as defined in Section 3 (16 USC 1362) of the MMPA, means“to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.”“Harassment” was further defined in the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, which provided two levels of“harassment,” Level A (potential injury) and Level B (potential disturbance).The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) amended thedefinition of harassment as applied to military readiness activities or scientific research activitiesconducted by or on behalf of the federal government, consistent with Section 104(c)(3) [16 USC 1374(c)(3)]. The Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act adopted the definition of “militaryreadiness activity” as set forth in the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law107-314). Military training activities within the VACAPES Study Area constitute military readinessactivities as that term is defined in Public Law 107-314 because training activities constitute “training andoperations of the Armed Forces that relate to combat” and constitute “adequate and realistic testing ofmilitary equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation and suitability for combat use.”For military readiness activities, the relevant definition of harassment is any act that: Injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild(“Level A harassment”). Disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causingdisruption of natural behavioral patterns including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing,breeding, feeding, or sheltering to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned orsignificantly altered (“Level B harassment”) [16 USC 1362 (18)(B)(i)(ii)].Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA directs the Secretary of the Department of Commerce to allow, uponrequest, the incidental (but not intentional) taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in aspecified activity (exclusive of commercial fishing), if certain findings are made and regulations areissued. Authorization will be granted by the Secretary for the incidental take of marine mammals if thetaking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock and will not have an unmitigable adverseimpact on the availability of such species or stock for taking for subsistence uses.Several species of marine mammals may occur in the VACAPES Study Area. Accordingly, the Navy hascompleted an analysis to determine if the action would result in incidental harassment of individualmarine mammals (Level A or B harassment, as defined by MMPA) or if the action would have more thana negligible impact on marine mammal populations. The Navy has initiated the MMPA complianceprocess with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).Endangered Species ActThe Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 established protection and conservation of threatened andendangered species and their ecosystems. An “endangered” species is a species in danger of extinctionthroughout all or a significant portion of its range, while a “threatened” species is likely to becomeendangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or in a significant portion of its range. TheUSFWS and NMFS jointly administer the ESA and are also responsible for the listing of species (i.e., the3-131 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalslabeling of a species as either threatened or endangered). The USFWS has primary managementresponsibility for management of terrestrial and freshwater species (including the West Indian manatee),while the NMFS has primary responsibility for marine species (including listed whales) and anadromousfish species (species that migrate from saltwater to freshwater to spawn). The ESA allows the designationof geographic areas as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species.The ESA requires federal agencies to conserve listed species and consult with the USFWS and/or NMFSto ensure that proposed actions that may affect listed species or critical habitat are consistent with therequirements of the ESA. The ESA specifically requires agencies not to “take” or “jeopardize thecontinued existence of” any endangered or threatened species, or to destroy or adversely modify habitatcritical to any endangered or threatened species. Under Section 9 of the ESA, “take” means to harass,harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. Harm is further defined by USFWS toinclude significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species bysignificantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined byUSFWS as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantlydisrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50CFR §17.3). Under Section 7 of the ESA, “jeopardize the continued existence of” means to engage inany action that would be expected to reduce appreciably the likelihood of the survival and recovery of alisted species by reducing its reproduction, numbers, or distribution (50 CFR §402.02).Seven marine mammal species that are listed as endangered under the ESA could potentially occur in theVACAPES Study Area. For purposes of ESA compliance, the Navy analyzed effects of the action tomake a determination of effect for listed species (e.g., no effect or may affect). The definitions used inmaking the determination of effect under Section 7 of the ESA are based on the USFWS and NMFSEndangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS and NMFS, 1998). “No effect” is the appropriateconclusion when a listed species will not be affected, either because the species will not be present orbecause the project does not have any elements with the potential to affect the species. “No effect” doesnot include a small effect or an effect that is unlikely to occur: if effects are insignificant (in size),discountable (extremely unlikely), or wholly beneficial a “may affect” determination is appropriate.Insignificant effects relate to the magnitude or extent of the impact (i.e., they must be small and would notrise to the level of a take of a species). Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur andbased on best judgment, a person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluateinsignificant effects; or (2) expect discountable effects to occur.The Navy has completed the ESA Section 7 informal consultation process with USFWS for the WestIndian manatee. The Navy has initiated the ESA Section 7 formal consultation process with NMFS todetermine if the action would adversely affect ESA-listed whales or jeopardize the continued existence ofa listed species. Critical habitat for listed species has not been designated under the ESA in theVACAPES Study Area. Copies of correspondence with NMFS and USFWS are provided inAppendices A and C of this EIS/OEIS.National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114In addition to addressing MMPA and ESA requirements, potential effects were analyzed in accordancewith the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to determine if the action would result in significantimpacts to marine mammals in territorial waters and in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 12114 todetermine if the action would result in significant harm to marine mammals in non-territorial waters.For purposes of NEPA and EO 12114, the Navy considered context and intensity to determine thesignificance of effects. Context refers to the affected environment in which the action would occur andintensity refers to the severity of impacts. The Navy considered several contexts such as society as awhole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. The duration of3-132 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalseffects (e.g., short-term, long-term, temporary, permanent); degree of controversy; degree of highlyuncertain effects or unique or unknown risks; precedent-setting effects; cumulative effects; adverse effecton ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat; and whether the action threatens a violation of law orrequirements imposed for the protection of the environment were also considered. The potential foradverse effects to be observed at the population, stock, or species level was a primary factor consideredby the Navy in determining the significance of effects to marine mammals. While the factors outlinedabove for MMPA and ESA were considered in making NEPA and EO 12114 significance conclusions, itshould be recognized that the terminology used to characterize effects varies under these Acts. Forexample, Level A or B harassment of an individual marine mammal under MMPA or take of anindividual marine mammal under ESA do not necessarily equate to a significant impact under NEPA.Rather, the Navy considered context, intensity, and population-level effects in making its significanceconclusions for marine mammals.3.7.1.2 Assessment Methods and Data UsedGeneral Approach to AnalysisEach alternative analyzed in this EIS/OEIS includes several warfare areas (e.g., Mine Warfare, Anti-airWarfare, etc.) and most warfare areas include multiple types of training operations (e.g., MineNeutralization, Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise, etc.). Likewise, several activities (e.g., vesselmovements, aircraft overflights, weapons firing, etc.) are accomplished under each operation, and thoseactivities typically are not unique to that operation. For example, many of the operations involve Navyvessel movements and aircraft overflights. Accordingly, the analysis for marine mammals is organizedby specific activity and/or stressors associated with that activity, rather than warfare area or operations.The following general steps were used to analyze the potential environmental consequences of thealternatives to marine mammals: Identify those aspects of the proposed action that are likely to act as stressors to biological resourcesby having a direct or indirect effect on the physical, chemical, and biotic environment. As part of thisstep, the spatial extent of these stressors, including changes in that spatial extent over time, wereidentified. The results of this step identified those aspects of the proposed action that required detailedanalysis in this EIS/OEIS. Identify resources that may occur in the Study Area. Identify the biological resources that are likely to co-occur with the stressors in space and time, andthe nature of that co-occurrence (exposure analysis). Determine whether and how biological resources are likely to respond given their exposure andavailable scientific knowledge of their responses (response analysis). Determine the risks those responses pose to biological resources and the significance of those risks.Study AreaThe Study Area for marine mammals is described in Section 1.5 and is shown in Figure 1.5-1. The StudyArea is analogous to the “action area,” for purposes of analysis under Section 7 of the ESA.Data SourcesA comprehensive and systematic review of relevant literature and data has been conducted to completethis analysis for marine mammals. Of the available scientific literature (both published and unpublished),the following types of documents were utilized in the assessment: journals, books, periodicals, bulletins,Department of Defense operations reports, theses, dissertations, endangered species recovery plans,species management plans, stock assessment reports, Environmental Impact Statements, Range ComplexManagement Plans, and other technical reports published by government agencies, private businesses, or3-133 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsconsulting firms. The scientific literature was also consulted during the search for geographic locationdata (geographic coordinates) on the occurrence of marine resources within the Study Area.Information was collected from the following sources to summarize the occurrence patterns of and toevaluate the impacts to protected species in the Study Area and vicinity: Academic and educational/research institutions: College of William and Mary, Duke University, LosAngeles County Museum, New England Aquarium, Old Dominion University, Rutgers University,Texas A&M University, University of Rhode Island, and Virginia Institute of Marine Science; University on-line databases: Ingenta, Web of Science; Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts,Science Direct, Synergy, BIOSIS previews; The Internet, including various databases and related websites: National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA)-Coastal Services Center, NMFS, Ocean Biogeographic Information System,U.S. Geological Survey, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, South Atlantic FisheryManagement Council, New England Fishery Management Council, Atlantic States Marine FisheriesCommission, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, WhaleNet, Blackwell-Science, FishBase,Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Food andAgriculture Organization, Federal Register, Marine Turtle Newsletter, Proceedings of the Annual SeaTurtle Symposium, Caribbean Conservation Corporation, National Marine Mammal LaboratoryLibrary, and Seaturtle.org; Federal and state agencies: the Navy, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Gulf of MexicoFishery Management Council, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Mid-Atlantic FisheryManagement Council, New England Fishery Management Council, NMFS Highly Migratory SpeciesDivision, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center,NMFS Southeast Regional Office, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NMFS NortheastRegional Office, NMFS Office of Habitat Protection, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, NOAA:Marine Managed Areas Inventory, USFWS Ecological Services Field Offices, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey: Sirenia Project, Bureau of Land Management, MineralsManagement Service, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine ResearchInstitute, and Georgia Department of Natural Resources; and Marine resource experts and specialists.Marine Resource AssessmentsThe information contained in this Chapter relies heavily on the data gathered in the Marine ResourceAssessments (MRA). The Navy MRA Program was implemented by the U.S. Fleet Forces, to initiatecollection of data and information concerning the protected and commercial marine resources found in theNavy’s OPAREAs. Specifically, the goal of the MRA program is to describe and document the marineresources present in each of the Navy’s OPAREAs. The final version MRA for the Virginia CapesOPAREA was completed in 2008 (DoN, 2008a).The MRA data were used to provide a regional context for each species. The MRA represents acompilation and synthesis of available scientific literature (e.g., journals, periodicals, theses, dissertations,project reports, and other technical reports published by government agencies, private businesses, orconsulting firms), and NMFS reports including stock assessment reports, recovery plans, and surveyreports.Navy OPAREA Density Estimates ReportThe density estimates that were used in previous Navy environmental documents have been recentlyupdated to provide a compilation of the most recent data and information on the occurrence, distribution,3-134 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsand density of marine mammals. The updated density estimates presented in this EIS/OEIS are derivedfrom the Navy OPAREA Density Estimates (NODE) for the Southeast OPAREAs report (DoN, 2007a).Density estimates for cetaceans were either modeled using available line-transect survey data or derivedusing available data in order of preference: 1) through spatial models using line-transect survey dataprovided by NMFS; 2) using abundance estimates from Mullin and Fulling (2003); 3) or based on thecetacean abundance estimates found in the most current National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) stock assessment report (SAR) (Waring et al., 2007).For the model-based approach, density estimates were calculated for each species within areas containingsurvey effort. A relationship between these density estimates and the associated environmentalparameters such as depth, slope, distance from the shelf break, sea surface temperature (SST), andchlorophyll a concentration were formulated using generalized additive models (GAM). This relationshipwas then used to generate a two-dimensional density surface for the region by predicting densities in areaswhere no survey data exist.The analyses for cetaceans were based on sighting data collected through shipboard surveys conducted byNMFS-Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and Southeast Fisheries Science Center(NMFS-SEFSC) between 1998 and 2005. Species-specific density estimates derived through spatialmodeling were compared with abundance estimates found in the most current NOAA SAR to ensureconsistency. All spatial models and density estimates were reviewed by and coordinated with NMFSScience Center technical staff and scientists with the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, Centre forEnvironmental and Ecological Modeling (CREEM). For a more detailed description of the methodinvolved in calculating the density estimates provided in this EIS/OEIS, please refer to the NODE reportfor the Southeast (DoN, 2007a). The report is available at:http://www. www.vacapesrangecomplexeis.com /documents/DON_2007i_SE_NODE_Final_Report.pdf.The following shows how density estimates were modeled or derived for species analyzed in thisEIS/OEIS:Model-Derived Density Estimates - Line Transect Survey Data Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) Beaked Whales (Family Ziphiidae) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) Pilot Whales (Globicephala spp.)SAR or Literature-Derived Density Estimates North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) 1 Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 1 Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 2 Kogia spp. 2 Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) 2 Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) 2 Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene) 21Abundance estimates were geographically and seasonally partitioned2Abundance estimates were uniformly distributed geographically and seasonally Source: DoN, 2008a3-135 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTable 3.7-1 shows the density estimates by species for training areas where explosive ordnance use mayoccur in the VACAPES Range Complex.TABLE 3.7-1SEASONAL DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPESRANGE COMPLEX TRAINING AREAS WHERE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE MAY OCCURSpecies and Training AreaDensity (animals/km 2 )Winter(Dec-Feb)Spring(Mar-May)Summer(June-Aug)Fall(Sept-Nov)Threatened or Endangered Marine Mammal SpeciesBlue WhaleInsufficient data to estimate density.Fin WhaleW-50 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000W-72A(2) 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033Air-3B 0.00017 0.00017 0.00017 0.000171C1/2

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-1SEASONAL DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPESRANGE COMPLEX TRAINING AREAS WHERE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE MAY OCCUR(Continued)Species and Training AreaDensity (animals/km 2 )Winter(Dec-Feb)Spring(Mar-May)Summer(June-Aug)Fall(Sept-Nov)Sperm WhaleW-50

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-1SEASONAL DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPESRANGE COMPLEX TRAINING AREAS WHERE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE MAY OCCUR(Continued)Species and Training AreaDensity (animals/km 2 )Winter Spring SummerFall(Dec-Feb) (Mar-May) (June-Aug) (Sept-Nov)Air-E, F, I, J 0.08107 0.08107 0.07070 0.08107Air-K (No Action & Alt 1) 0.01420 0.01420 0.02195 0.01420Air-3B 1.70024 1.70024 1.69141 1.700241C1/2 0.16022 0.16022 0.11849 0.160225C/D 0.00871 0.00871 0.00447 0.008717C/D and 8C/D 0.01862 0.01862 0.03358 0.01862Air-K (Alt 2) 0.00428 0.00428 0.00979 0.00428Bryde's WhaleInsufficient data to estimate density.Clymene DolphinW-50 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063W-72A (2) 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063Air-E, F, I, J 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063Air-K (No Action & Alt 1) 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063Air-3B 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063 0.010631C1/2 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063 0.010635C/D 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063 0.010637C/D and 8C/D 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063Air-K (Alt 2) 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063 0.01063Common DolphinW-50 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000W-72A (2) 0.35755 0.35755 0.35755 0.35755Air-E, F, I, J 0.40676 0.40676 0.40676 0.40676Air-K (No Action & Alt 1) 0.86488 0.86488 0.86488 0.86488Air-3B 1.94767 1.94767 1.94767 1.947671C1/2 0.00263 0.00263 0.00263 0.002635C/D 0.00345 0.00345 0.00345 0.003457C/D and 8C/D 0.89301 0.89301 0.89301 0.89301Air-K (Alt 2) 0.71119 0.71119 0.71119 0.71119False Killer whaleInsufficient data to estimate density.Fraser's DolphinInsufficient data to estimate density.Killer WhaleInsufficient data to estimate density.Melon-headed WhaleInsufficient data to estimate density.Minke WhaleW-50 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004W-72A (2) 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004Air-E, F, I, J 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004Air-K (No Action & Alt 1) 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004Air-3B 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.000043-138 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-1SEASONAL DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPESRANGE COMPLEX TRAINING AREAS WHERE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE MAY OCCUR(Continued)Species and Training AreaDensity (animals/km 2 )Winter Spring SummerFall(Dec-Feb) (Mar-May) (June-Aug) (Sept-Nov)1C1/2 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.000045C/D 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.000047C/D and 8C/D 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004Air-K (Alt 2) 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004Pantropical Spotted DolphinW-50 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225W-72A (2) 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225Air-E, F, I, J 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225Air-K (No Action & Alt 1) 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225Air-3B 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225 0.022251C1/2 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225 0.022255C/D 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225 0.022257C/D and 8C/D 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225Air-K (Alt 2) 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225 0.02225Pilot WhalesW-50 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004 0.00004W-72A (2) 0.07438 0.07438 0.08958 0.07438Air-E, F, I, J 0.07893 0.07893 0.07069 0.07893Air-K (No Action & Alt 1) 0.01207 0.01207 0.00302 0.01207Air-3B 0.21570 0.21570 0.27301 0.215701C1/2 0.11408 0.11408 0.23862 0.114085C/D 0.09277 0.09277 0.09583 0.092777C/D and 8C/D 0.01314 0.01314 0.00369 0.01314Air-K (Alt 2) 0.00061 0.00061 0.00003 0.00061Pygmy and Dwarf SpermWhalesW-50 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101W-72A (2) 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101Air-E, F, I, J 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101Air-K (No Action & Alt 1) 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101Air-3B 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101 0.001011C1/2 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101 0.001015C/D 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101 0.001017C/D and 8C/D 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101Air-K (Alt 2) 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101 0.00101Pygmy Killer WhaleInsufficient data to estimate density.3-139 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-1SEASONAL DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPESRANGE COMPLEX TRAINING AREAS WHERE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE MAY OCCUR(Continued)Species and Training AreaDensity (animals/km 2 )Winter(Dec-Feb)Spring(Mar-May)Summer(June-Aug)Fall(Sept-Nov)Risso's DolphinW-50 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000W-72A (2) 0.02277 0.02277 0.02277 0.02277Air-E, F, I, J 0.03654 0.03654 0.03654 0.03654Air-K (No Action & Alt 1) 0.01956 0.01956 0.01956 0.01956Air-3B 0.00814 0.00814 0.00814 0.008141C1/2 0.01894 0.01894 0.01894 0.018945C/D 0.04967 0.04967 0.04967 0.049677C/D and 8C/D 0.02516 0.02516 0.02516 0.02516Air-K (Alt 2) 0.00377 0.00377 0.00377 0.00377Rough-toothed DolphinW-50 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048W-72A (2) 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048Air-E, F, I, J 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048Air-K (No Action & Alt 1) 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048Air-3B 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048 0.000481C1/2 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048 0.000485C/D 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048 0.000487C/D and 8C/D 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048Air-K (Alt 2) 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048 0.00048Spinner DolphinInsufficient data to estimate density.Striped DolphinW-50 0.00034 0.00034 0.00034 0.00034W-72A (2) 0.04396 0.04396 0.04396 0.04396Air-E, F, I, J 0.53951 0.53951 0.53951 0.53951Air-K (No Action & Alt 1) 0.24305 0.24305 0.24305 0.24305Air-3B 0.00116 0.00116 0.00116 0.001161C1/2 0.40708 0.40708 0.40708 0.407085C/D 0.59383 0.59383 0.59383 0.593837C/D and 8C/D 0.33568 0.33568 0.33568 0.33568Air-K (Alt 2) 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020Source: (DoN, 2007a)Density estimates could not be calculated for all species due to the limited available data. Occurrence ofthese species in the VACAPES Range Complex is considered uncommon.Species for Which Density Estimates Are Not Available Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera brydei/edeni)3-140 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammals Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) Melon-headed Whale (Peponocephala electra) Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)3.7.1.3 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsThe Navy used a screening process to identify aspects of the proposed action that could act as stressors tomarine mammals. Navy subject matter experts de-constructed the warfare areas and operations includedin the proposed action to identify specific activities that could act as stressors. Public and agency scopingcomments, previous environmental analyses, previous agency consultations, laws, regulations, ExecutiveOrders, and resource-specific information were also evaluated. This process was used to focus theinformation presented and analyzed in the affected environment and environmental consequences sectionsof this EIS/OEIS. As shown in Table 3.7-2, potential stressors to marine mammals include vesselmovements (disturbance or collisions), aircraft overflights (disturbance), towed Mine Warfare (MIW)devices (strikes), non-explosive mine shape deployment/recovery (habitat alteration), weaponsfiring/ordnance use (disturbance and strikes), explosions, and military expended materials (ordnancerelated materials, targets, chaff, self-protection flares, and marine markers). The potential effects of thesestressors on marine mammals are analyzed in detail in Section 3.7.3.As discussed in the EIS, Section 3.3 – Water Resources and Section 3.4 – Air Quality, some water and airpollutants would be released into the environment as a result of the proposed action. The analysespresented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 indicate that any increases in water or air pollutant concentrationsresulting from Navy training in the Study Area would be negligible and localized, and impacts to waterand air quality would be less than significant. Based on the analyses presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4,water and air quality changes would have no effect or negligible effects on marine mammals.Accordingly, the effects of water and air quality changes on marine mammals are not addressed further inthis EIS/OEIS.3.7.2 Affected Environment3.7.2.1 Regional OverviewTable 3.7-3 provides a list of marine mammal species that have confirmed or potential occurrence in theVACAPES Range Complex. These include 33 cetacean species, three pinniped species, and one sirenianspecies (DoN, 2008a). Extralimital species in the Study Area include the northern bottlenose whale andthe white-beaked dolphin. Extralimital indicates that there are one or more records of an animal’spresence in the Study Area, but it is considered beyond the normal range of the species. Extralimitalspecies will not be analyzed further in this study. Some cetacean species are resident year- round (e.g.,bottlenose dolphins [Tursiops truncatus] and beaked whales), while others (e.g., North Atlantic rightwhales [Eubalaena glacialis] and humpback whales [Megaptera novaeangliae]) occur seasonally as theymigrate through the area.3-141 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-2SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREAVessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Collisions)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Mine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and Operation TrainingAreasMine Warfare (MIW)Mine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM)Mine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM)LowerChesapeake BayW-50A/CW-386, W-72 Mine Neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (at sea)Missile Exercise (MISSILEX) (Air-to-Surface)Gunnery Exercise (GUNEX) (Air-to-Surface)W-386 (Air-K)W-72A (Air-3B)W-72A/BW-386 (Air-K)W-72AW-386 (Air-K),W-72A, W-72A(Air-1A), W-50C GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) Boat W-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) Ship W-386, W-72 Laser Targeting W-386 (Air-K) Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure/MaritimeInterception Operations (VBSS/MIO)-ShipVACAPESOPAREAVBSS/MIO- Helo VACAPESOPAREA 3-142 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-2SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREA(Continued)Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Collisions)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Mine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and Operation TrainingAreasAir Warfare (AW)Air Combat Maneuver (ACM)W-72A(Air-2A/B, 3A/B)GUNEX (Air-to-Air) W-72A MISSILEX (Air-to-Air)W-386 (Air D, G,H, K)W-72A GUNEX (Surface-to-Air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (Surface-to-Air)W-386(Air D, G, H, K)Air Intercept Control (AIC) W-386, W-72 Detect to Engage (DTE) W-386, W-72 Strike Warfare (STW)HARM Missile ExerciseW-386(Air E,F,I,J) 3-143 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-2SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREA(Continued)Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Collisions)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Mine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and Operation TrainingAreasAmphibious Warfare (AMW)Firing Exercise (FIREX) with IntegratedMaritime Portable Acoustic Scoring andSimulator System (IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)Chaff Exercise- aircraftW-386 (7C/D,8C/D), W-72(1C1/2)(Preferred Areas),W-386 (5C/D)(SecondaryAreas)W-386, W-386(Air-K) and W-72 Chaff Exercise- ship W-386 and W-72 Flare Exercise- aircraftElectronic Combat (EC) OperationsaircraftEC Operations- shipTest and EvaluationShipboard Electronic Systems EvaluationFacility (SESEF) UtilizationW-386, W-386(Air-K) and W-72W-386 (Air-K) VACAPESOPAREAVACAPESOPAREA 3-144 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-3MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES FOUND IN THE VACAPESEIS/OEIS STUDY AREAFamily and Scientific Name Common Name Federal StatusOrder CetaceaSuborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)Family Balaenidae (right whales)Eubalaena glacialis North Atlantic right whale ENDANGEREDFamily Balaenopteridae (rorquals)Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale ENDANGEREDBalaenoptera acutorostrata Minke whaleBalaenoptera brydei Bryde’s whaleBalaenoptera boreali Sei whale ENDANGEREDBalaenoptera physalus Fin whale ENDANGEREDBalaenoptera musculus Blue whale ENDANGEREDSuborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)Physeter macrocephalus Sperm whale ENDANGEREDFamily Kogiidae (pygmy sperm whales)Kogia brevicepsPygmy sperm whaleKogia simaDwarf sperm whaleFamily Ziphiidae (beaked whales)Ziphius cavirostris Cuvier's beaked whaleMesoplodon mirus True's beaked whaleMesoplodon europaeus Gervais' beaked whaleMesoplodon bidens Sowerby's beaked whaleMesoplodon densirostris Blainville's beaked whaleFamily Delphinidae (dolphins)Steno bredanensis Rough-toothed dolphinTursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphinStenella attenuataPantropical spotteddolphinStenella frontalisAtlantic spotted dolphinStenella longirostris Spinner dolphinStenella clymeneClymene dolphinStenella coeruleoalba Striped dolphinDelphinus delphis Common dolphinLagenodelphis hosei Fraser's dolphinLagenorhynchus acutus Atlantic white-sideddolphinGrampus griseusRisso's dolphinPeponocephala electra Melon-headed whaleFeresa attenuataPygmy killer whale3-145 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-3MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES FOUND IN THE VACAPESEIS/OEIS STUDY AREA(Continued)Family and Scientific Name Common Name Federal StatusPseudorca crassidens False killer whaleOrcinus orcaKiller whaleGlobicephala melas Long-finned pilot whaleGlobicephalamacrorhynchusShort-finned pilot whaleFamily Phocoenidae (porpoises)Phocoena phocoena Harbor porpoiseOrder CarnivoraSuborder Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions, walruses)Family Phocidae (true seals)Phoca vitulinaHarbor sealHalichoerus grypus Gray sealPagophilus groenlandicus Harp sealOrder SireniaFamily Trichechidae (manatees)Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee ENDANGERED*Source: DoN, 2008a ; DoN, 2008bMarine mammal distribution is affected by demographic, evolutionary, ecological, habitat-related, andanthropogenic factors (Bjørge, 2002; Bowen, et al., 2002; Forcada, 2002; Stevick, et al., 2002).Movement of individuals is generally associated with feeding or breeding activity (Stevick, et al., 2002).Some baleen whale species, such as the humpback whale, make extensive annual migrations to lowlatitudemating and calving grounds in the winter and to high-latitude feeding grounds in the summer(Corkeron and Connor, 1999). Migrations undoubtedly occur during these seasons due to the presence ofhighly productive waters and associated cetacean prey species at high latitudes and of warm watertemperatures for calving at low latitudes (Corkeron and Connor, 1999; Stern, 2002). However, not allbaleen whales migrate. Some individual fin, Bryde’s, minke, and blue whales may stay in a specific areayear-round. Cetacean movements can also reflect the distribution and abundance of prey (Gaskin, 1982;Payne, et al., 1986; Kenney, et al., 1996). Cetacean movements have been linked to indirect indicators ofprey, such as temperature variations, sea-surface chlorophyll a concentrations, and features such asbottom depth (Fiedler, 2002). Oceanographic features, such as eddies associated with the Gulf Stream,are important factors determining cetacean distribution since cetacean prey occur in areas of increasedprimary productivity associated with some of these features (Biggs et al., 2000; Wormuth et al., 2000;Davis et al., 2002). The warm Gulf Stream moves rapidly through the Florida Straits and extendsnortheast along the continental shelf. This current is the single most-influential oceanographic feature ofthe region and influences water temperature, salinity, and nutrient availability. These factors, in turn, areimportant in regulating primary productivity associated with phytoplankton growth in the region and thesubsequent secondary productivity of zooplankton and other animal life that provide prey for marinemammals.An association between cetaceans and cold-core and warm-core rings also exists (Griffin, 1999; Biggs etal., 2000; Waring et al., 2001). Both ring types are eddies that detach from the Gulf Stream; it is possible3-146 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsto find both types of rings near the VACAPES Study Area, increasing the likelihood of greater cetaceanpresence for the duration of these large-scale hydrographic features. It is likely that the upwellingassociated with cold-core rings concentrate mesopelagic squid and fish for greater feeding efficiency bycetaceans.Along the Virginia and North Carolina shoreline, upwelling and downwelling events are not limited toGulf Stream or deep-sea canyon geography. Wind patterns and outflow from the Chesapeake Bay causeupwelling and downwelling features along the continental shelf on a regular basis (Cudaback and Largier,2001), potentially increasing regional productivity and, therefore, local cetacean abundance.Disturbances, such as hurricanes, atmospheric frontal systems, and shifts in current patterns can alsoincrease the before-mentioned oceanographic conditions to enhance local productivity. For example,increased sediment and nutrient loads are present in freshwater systems following heavy and prolongedrainfall, similarly enhancing primary productivity along the continental shelf near the system’s effluence.Waters off North Carolina have the greatest cetacean diversity along the eastern seaboard (Webster et al.,1995). Cape Hatteras is generally considered a boundary between temperate and tropical species in thewestern North Atlantic and an area of overlap for many marine species (Ekman, 1953; Briggs, 1974;Garrison et al., 2003b). Many marine mammals along North Carolina waters are year-round residents,but others migrate into inshore waters during summer/fall and winter/spring months (Webster et al.,1995).3.7.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Marine MammalsAs identified in Table 3.7-2, seven marine mammal species listed as endangered under the ESA mayoccur within in the VACAPES Study Area. These mammals include five baleen whale species (blue, fin,humpback, North Atlantic right, and sei), one toothed whale species (sperm whale), and one sirenianspecies (West Indian manatee). Status, habitat, and distribution of each species are provided below.3.7.2.3 Blue WhaleBlue whales are the largest living animals. Adult blue whales in the northern hemisphere reach 22.9 to28 m in length (Jefferson et al., 1993). Blue whales feed primarily on euphausiids (krill) (Kenney etal., 1985; Nemoto and Kawamura, 1977). Like other rorquals, blue whales feed by “gulping”(Pivorunas, 1979).Status and Management – The endangered blue whale was severely depleted by commercial whaling inthe twentieth century (NMFS 1998a). At least two discrete populations are found in the North Atlantic.One ranges from West Greenland to New England and is centered in eastern Canadian waters; the other iscentered in Icelandic waters and extends south to northwest Africa (Sears et al. 2005). There are nocurrent estimates of abundance for the North Atlantic blue whale (Waring et al. 2008). However, the 308photo-identified individuals from the Gulf of St. Lawrence area are considered to be a minimumpopulation estimate for the western North Atlantic stock (Sears et al. 1987; Waring et al. 2008). The bluewhale is under the jurisdiction of the NMFS. The recovery plan for the blue whale was issued in 1998(NMFS 1998a).Habitat - Blue whales inhabit both coastal and oceanic waters in temperate and tropical areas (Yochemand Leatherwood, 1985). Stranding and sighting data suggest blue whale occurrence in the Atlanticextended south to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico; however, the southern limit of this species’ range isunknown (Yochem and Leatherwood, 1985). Blue whales in the Atlantic are primarily found in deeper,offshore waters and are rare in shallower, shelf waters (Wenzel et al., 1988). However, in the Gulf of St.Lawrence, blue whales show strong preferences for the nearshore regions where strong tidal and currentmixing leads to high productivity and rich prey resources (Sears et al., 1990). Important foraging areasfor this species include the edges of continental shelves and upwelling regions (Reilly and Thayer, 1990;3-147 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsSchoenherr, 1991). Based on acoustic and tagging data from the North Pacific, relatively cold, productivewaters and fronts attract feeding blue whales (Moore et al., 2002). Clark and Gagnon (2004) determinedthat vocalizing blue whales show strong preferences, even during summer months, for shelf breaks,seamounts, or other areas where food resources are known to occur.Acoustics and Hearing – Blue whale vocalizations are typically long, patterned low-frequency soundswith durations up to 36 sec (Thomson and Richardson, 1995) repeated every 1 to 2 min (Mellinger andClark, 2003). Their frequency range is 12 to 400 Hz, with dominant energy in the infrasonic range at 12 to25 Hz (Ketten, 1998; Mellinger and Clark, 2003). The short-duration sounds are transient, frequencymodulatedcalls having a higher frequency range and shorter duration than song notes and often sweepingdown in frequency (Di Iorio et al., 2005; Rankin et al., 2005). These short-duration sounds are less than5 sec in duration (Di Iorio et al., 2005; Rankin et al., 2005) and are high-intensity, broadband (858±148Hz) pulses (Di Iorio et al., 2005). Source levels of blue whale vocalizations are up to 188 dB (Ketten,1998; Moore, 1999; McDonald et al., 2001). While no data on hearing availability are available for thisspecies, Ketten (1997) hypothesized that mysticetes have acute infrasonic hearing.Distribution - Blue whales are distributed from the ice edge to the tropics and subtropics in bothhemispheres (Jefferson et al., 1993). Stranding and sighting data suggest blue whale occurrence in theAtlantic extended south to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico; however, the southern limit of this species’range is unknown (Yochem and Leatherwood, 1985). Blue whales now rarely occur in the U.S. AtlanticExclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the Gulf of Maine from August to October, which may representthe limits of their feeding range (CETAP, 1982; Wenzel et al., 1988). Sightings in the Gulf of Maine andU.S. EEZ have been made during multiple studies in late summer and early fall (August and October)(CETAP, 1982; Wenzel et al., 1988). Researchers using the Navy integrated undersea surveillancesystem resources detected blue whales throughout the open Atlantic south to at least the Bahamas (Clark,1995), suggesting that all North Atlantic blue whales may comprise a single stock (NMFS, 1998a).Calving area is unknown and occurs primarily during the winter (Yochem and Leatherwood 1985;Jefferson et al. 2008). Breeding grounds are thought to be located in tropical/subtropical waters;however, exact locations are unknown (Jefferson et al. 2008).VACAPES OPAREA Blue Whale Occurrence - The majority of western North Atlantic blue whaleobservations during the spring, summer, and fall take place around Newfoundland, the Gulf of St.Lawrence, and Nova Scotia (CETAP, 1982; Wenzel et al., 1988; Sears et al., 1990). The southern extentof its feeding range may be somewhere near 40° N latitude and records suggest occurrence of this speciessouth to Florida and in the Gulf of Mexico. The information above suggests the blue whale is less likelyto be present during summer months, but may occur any time of the year.Lower Chesapeake Bay Blue Whale Occurrence - The blue whale is considered extralimital in the lowerChesapeake Bay.VACAPES OPAREA Blue Whale Density - There were not sufficient data available to estimate a densityfor the Study Area, nor is there an abundance estimate in the NOAA SAR (DoN, 2007a).Fin WhaleThe fin whale is the second-largest whale species, with adults reaching 24 m in length (Jefferson etal., 1993). Fin whales feed by “gulping” a wide variety of small, schooling prey (especially herring,capelin, and sand lance) including squid and crustaceans (krill and copepods) (Kenney et al., 1985;NMFS, 2006a).Status and Management - The NOAA SAR estimates that there are 2,269 individual fin whales in theU.S. Atlantic waters (Waring et al. 2008); this is probably an underestimate, however, as survey coverage3-148 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsof known and potential fin whale habitat was incomplete. The fin whale is listed as endangered under theESA and is managed under jurisdiction of the NMFS. The draft recovery plan for the fin whale wasreleased in June 2006 (NMFS 2006a). NMFS recently initiated a 5-yr review for the fin whale under theESA (NMFS 2007a).Habitat - The fin whale is found in continental shelf, slope, and oceanic waters. Off the U.S. east coast,the fin whale appears to be scarce in slope and Gulf Stream waters (CETAP, 1982; Waring et al., 1992).Waring et al. (1992) reported sighting fin whales along the edge of a warm core eddy and a remnant nearWilmington Canyon, along the northern wall of the Gulf Stream. Globally, this species tends to beaggregated in locations where populations of prey are most plentiful, irrespective of water depth, althoughthose locations may shift seasonally or annually (Payne et al., 1986; 1990; Kenney et al., 1997;Notarbartolo-di-Sciara et al., 2003). Clark and Gagnon (2004) determined that vocalizing fin whalesshow strong preferences, even during summer months, for shelf breaks, seamounts, or other areas wherefood resources are known to occur.Acoustics and Hearing – Fin and blue whales produce calls with the lowest frequency and some of thehighest source levels of all cetaceans. Infrasonic, pattern sounds have been documented for fin whales(Watkins et al., 1987; Clark and Fristrup, 1997; McDonald and Fox, 1999). Fin whales produce a varietyof sounds with a frequency range up to 750 Hz. The long, patterned 15 to 30 Hz vocal sequence is mosttypically recorded; only males are known to produce these (Croll et al., 2002). The most typical finwhale sound is a 20 Hz infrasonic pulse (actually an FM sweep from about 23 to 18 Hz) with durations ofabout 1 sec and can reach source levels of 184 to 186 dB (Watkins et al., 1987; Thomson and Richardson,1995; Charif et al., 2002). While no data on hearing availability are available for this species, Ketten(1997) hypothesized that mysticetes have acute infrasonic hearing.Distribution - Fin whales are broadly distributed throughout the world’s oceans, including temperate,tropical, and polar regions (Jefferson et al., 2008). The overall range of fin whales in the North Atlanticextends from the Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean and Mediterranean north to Greenland, Iceland, and Norway(Gambell, 1985; NMFS, 1998b). In the western North Atlantic, the fin whale is the most commonlysighted large whale in continental shelf waters from the mid-Atlantic coast of the U.S. to eastern Canada(CETAP, 1982; Hain et al., 1992).Relatively consistent sighting locations for fin whales off the U.S. Atlantic coast include the banks on theNova Scotian Shelf, Georges Bank, Jeffreys Ledge, Cashes Ledge, Stellwagen Bank, Grand Manan Bank,Newfoundland Grand Banks, the Great South Channel, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, off Long Island andBlock Island, Rhode Island, and along the shelf break of the northeastern United States (CETAP, 1982;Hain et al., 1992; Waring et al., 2004). Hain et al. (1992) reported that the single most important habitatidentified in their study was a region of the western Gulf of Maine, to Jeffreys Ledge, Cape Ann,Stellwagen Bank, and to the Great South Channel, in approximately 50 m of water. This was an area ofhigh prey (sand lance) density during the 1970s and early 1980s (Kenney and Winn 1986). Secondaryareas of important fin whale habitat included the mid- to outer shelf from the northeast area of GeorgesBank through the mid-Atlantic Bight.Based on passive acoustic detection using Navy Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) hydrophones in thewestern North Atlantic (Clark, 1995), fin whales are believed to move southward in the fall andnorthward in spring. The location and extent of the wintering grounds are poorly known (Aguilar, 2002).Fin whales have been seen feeding as far south as the coast of Virginia (Hain et al., 1992).Fin whales are not completely absent from northeastern U.S. continental shelf waters in winter, indicatingthat not all members of the population conduct seasonal migrations. Perhaps a fifth to a quarter of thespring/summer peak population remains in this area year-round (CETAP, 1982; Hain et al., 1992).3-149 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsPeak calving is in October through January (Hain et al. 1992); however, location of breeding grounds isunknown.VACAPES OPAREA Fin Whale Occurrence - Fin whales are more commonly encountered north ofCape Hatteras (CETAP, 1982; Hain et al., 1992; Waring et al., 2007). Fin whales are the most commonlysighted large whale during the winter in the U.S. Atlantic continental shelf waters. As much as a quarterof the spring/summer peak population stay in continental shelf waters year-round (CETAP, 1982). Duringthe spring, summer, and fall, fin whales occur along the Atlantic coasts of the U.S. and Canada, withsmaller numbers of animals remaining through the winter. Sightings are almost exclusively limited tocontinental shelf waters inshore of the 6000 foot isobath, from the Gulf of Maine south to Cape Hatteras(CETAP, 1982; Agler et al., 1993). The greatest abundance and widest occupation of fin whales in thenortheast U.S. has been shown to occur in the spring (Hain et al., 1985).Lower Chesapeake Bay Fin Whale Occurrence - The Chesapeake Bay region is considered a normalpart of the fin whale’s range. Documented occurrences for the fin whale in the Chesapeake Bay area arefrom February through May, with the greatest likelihood of encounter during the winter months.However, a review of the offshore sighting suggests that fin whales could be encountered year-round inthis region (DoN, 2007b). Blaylock (1985) noted that the fin whale is the most abundant large whale inVirginia’s waters. Fin whales could occur in the lower Chesapeake Bay region year-round.VACAPES OPAREA Fin Whale Density - The density estimates for training areas where explosionsand/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1. Methods andresults are detailed in the NODE Report (DoN, 2007a). The Navy does not consider estimates of zerodensity to mean that this species does not occur in the area only that they generally occur in low numbersor infrequently based on the best available data. It may be reasonable to assume that a number of thesightings recorded as unidentified rorquals might be of fin whales.3.7.2.4 Humpback WhaleAdult humpback whales are 11 to 16 m in length. The body is black or dark gray, with very long (aboutone-third of the body length) flippers that are usually at least partially white (Jefferson et al., 1993;Clapham and Mead, 1999). Humpback whales feed on a wide variety of invertebrates and small schoolingfish, including euphausiids (krill), herring, mackerel, sand lance, sardines, anchovies, and capelin(Clapham and Mead, 1999).Status and Management - An estimated 11,570 humpback whales occur in the entire North Atlantic(Stevick et al. 2003a). Humpback whales in the western North Atlantic are thought to belong to fivedifferent stocks based on feeding locations (Katona and Beard 1990; Waring et al. 2008): Gulf of Maine,Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland/Labrador, western Greenland, and Iceland. There appears to be verylittle exchange between these separate feeding stocks (Katona and Beard 1990). The best estimate ofabundance for the Gulf of Maine Stock is 847 individuals (Waring et al. 2008) based on a 2006 aerialsurvey. The humpback whale is listed as endangered under the ESA and management of the species isunder the jurisdiction of the NMFS. The recovery plan for the humpback whale was issued in 1991(NMFS 1991).Habitat - Although humpback whales typically travel over deep, oceanic waters during migration, theirfeeding and breeding habitats are mostly in shallow, coastal waters over continental shelves (Claphamand Mead, 1999). Shallow banks or ledges with high sea-floor relief characterize feeding grounds (Payneet al., 1990; Hamazaki, 2002). The habitat requirements of wintering humpbacks appear to be determinedby the conditions necessary for calving. Optimal calving conditions are warm water (24° to 28° C) andrelatively shallow, low-relief ocean bottom in protected areas (i.e., behind reefs) (Sanders et al., 2005).3-150 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsFemales with calves occur in significantly shallower waters than other groups of humpback whales, andbreeding adults use deeper, more offshore waters (Smultea, 1994; Ersts and Rosenbaum, 2003).Acoustics and Hearing – Humpback whales produce sounds from 20 Hz to over 10 kHz, with dominantfrequencies below 3 kHz (Silber, 1986). Houser et al (2001a) produced the first humpback whaleaudiogram (using a mathematical model). The predicted audiogram indicates sensitivity to frequenciesfrom 700 Hz to 10 kHz, with maximum relative sensitivity between 2 and 6 kHz. Au et al. (2006) notedthat if the popular notion that animals generally hear the totality of the sounds they produce is applied tohumpback whales, this suggests that its upper frequency limit of hearing is as high as 24 kHz.Distribution - Humpback whales are globally distributed in all major oceans and most seas. They aregenerally found during the summer on high-latitude feeding grounds and during the winter in the tropicsand subtropics around islands, over shallow banks, and along continental coasts, where calving occurs.Most humpback whale sightings are in nearshore and continental shelf waters; however, humpbackwhales frequently travel through deep water during migration (Clapham and Mattila, 1990; Calambokidiset al., 2001).In the North Atlantic Ocean, humpbacks are found from spring through fall on feeding grounds that arelocated from south of New England to northern Norway (NMFS, 1991). During the winter, most of theNorth Atlantic population of humpback whales is believed to migrate south to calving grounds in theWest Indies region (Whitehead and Moore, 1982; Smith et al., 1999; Stevick et al., 2003b).There has been an increasing occurrence of humpbacks, which appear to be primarily juveniles, duringthe winter along the U.S. Atlantic coast from Florida north to Virginia (Clapham et al., 1993; Swingle etal., 1993; Wiley et al., 1995; Laerm et al., 1997). It was recently proposed that the mid-Atlantic regionprimarily represents a supplemental winter feeding ground, which is also an area of mixing of humpbackwhales from different feeding stocks (Barco et al., 2002).VACAPES OPAREA Humpback Whale Occurrence - Humpback whales occur on the continental shelfand in deep waters of the VACAPES OPAREA in fall, winter, and spring during migrations betweencalving grounds in the Caribbean and feeding grounds off the northeastern U.S. During the summer,humpback whales are found farther north at the feeding grounds. Several studies noted an increasingoccurrence of humpback whale sightings and strandings during the winter (particularly January throughApril) along the U.S. Atlantic coast from Florida north to Virginia (Clapham et al., 1993; Swingle et al.,1993; Wiley et al., 1995; Laerm et al., 1997). Humpback whales may occur throughout much of thenearshore and shelf waters of the VACAPES OPAREA. The area of greatest concentration includes shelfand slope waters off the coast of the Virginia/North Carolina border, as well as nearshore and shelf watersnear Cape Hatteras (DoN, 2008a), and reflects the increased use of this region during the winter months.The concentration of whales here also supports the notion of the mid-Atlantic region as a supplementalwinter feeding ground for humpbacks (Barco et al., 2002). During spring and fall, humpback whales mayoccur on the shelf, as well as farther offshore, during migrations.Lower Chesapeake Bay Humpback Whale Occurrence - An increase in the number of humpback whalesightings in the vicinity of Chesapeake Bay was noted in the early 1990s (Swingle et al., 1993) along withincreases in strandings in the mid-Atlantic region (Wiley et al.,1995; Barco et al.,2002). It is nowconsidered that mid-Atlantic waters serve as a supplemental feeding ground used by both juvenile andadult humpback whales, primarily during January through March (Swingle et al., 1993; Barco etal., 2002). The humpback whale is a species also affected by ship strikes; for example, an incidentinvolving a humpback whale took place near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay during February 1992 (Jensenand Silber, 2003). The greatest likelihood for encountering humpback whales in the Chesapeake Bay isbetween January and March. However, year-round usage of the area is likely based on sighting andstranding data also from the fall and summer (Barco et al., 2002; Swingle et al., 2007).3-151 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsVACAPES OPAREA Humpback Whale Density - The density estimates for training areas whereexplosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1.Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Report (DoN, 2007a). Density estimates for the OPAREAreflect the migration patterns of the humpback whale with higher density predicted during spring and fallmigration, lower densities during the winter when animals should be largely in calving grounds farthersouth, and zero density during the summer season when humpbacks should be on feeding grounds to thenorth.3.7.2.5 North Atlantic Right WhaleAdults are robust and may reach 18 m in length (Jefferson et al., 1993). North Atlantic right whales feedon zooplankton, particularly large calanoid copepods such as Calanus (Kenney et al., 1985; Beardsley etal., 1996; Baumgartner et al., 2007).Status and Management - The North Atlantic right whale is one of the world’s most endangered largewhale species (Clapham et al., 1999; Perry et al., 1999; IWC, 2001).According to the North Atlantic right whale report card released annually by the North Atlantic RightWhale Consortium, approximately 393 individuals are thought to occur in the western North Atlantic(NARWC, 2007). The most recent NOAA SAR states that in a review of the photo-id recapture databasefor June 2006, 313 individually recognized whales were known to be alive during 2001 (Waring et al.,2008). This is considered the minimum population size. The North Atlantic right whale is under thejurisdiction of the NMFS. The recovery plan for the North Atlantic right whale was published in 2005(NMFS, 2005b).This species showed a decline in survival during the 1990’s (Best et al., 2001; Waring et al., 2008). Inrecent years, there has been in increase in the number of catalogued individuals (Waring et al., 2008);however, Kraus et al. (2005) noted that the recent increases in birth rate were insufficient to counter theobserved spike in human-caused mortality that has recently occurred.One calving and two feeding areas in U.S. waters are designated as critical habitat for the North Atlanticright whale (NMFS, 1994; NMFS, 2005b)In an effort to reduce ship collisions with critically endangered North Atlantic right whales, the EarlyWarning System (EWS) was started in 1994 for the calving region along the southeastern U.S. coast. Thissystem, known as the Northeast U.S. Right Whale Sighting Advisory System in the northeast, wasextended in 1996 to the feeding areas off New England (NMFS-NEFSC, 2008).In 1999, a Mandatory Ship Reporting System was implemented by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)(USCG, 1999; USCG, 2001). This reporting system requires vessels larger than 300 gross registered tons(Navy ships are exempt) to report their location when entering the nursery and feeding areas of the rightwhale (Ward-Geiger et al., 2005). At the same time, ships receive information on locations of NorthAtlantic right whale sightings in order to avoid whale collisions. Reporting takes place in the southeasternU.S. from 15 November through 15 April. In the northeastern U.S., the reporting system is year-roundand the geographical boundaries include the waters of Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts Bay, and the GreatSouth Channel east and southeast of Massachusetts.In October 2008, NMFS published the final rule to implement speed restrictions to reduce the threat ofship collisions with NARW. The final rule includes a speed restriction of 10 knots or less during certaintimes of the year along the U.S. east coast and modification of key shipping routes into Boston. Theserestrictions only apply to vessels greater than 20 m in length and are not mandatory for any Federalagency (NOAA, 2008). However, the Navy is consulting with NMFS regarding potential impacts fromvessel collisions.3-152 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsHabitat - North Atlantic right whales on the winter calving grounds are most often found in very shallow,nearshore waters in cooler sea surface temperatures inshore of a mid-shelf front (Kraus et al., 1993;Ward, 1999). High whale densities can extend more northerly than the current defined boundary of thecalving critical habitat in response to interannual variability in regional sea surface temperaturedistribution (Garrison et al., 2005; Glass et al., 2005). Warm Gulf Stream waters appear to represent athermal limit (both southward and eastward) for right whales (Keller et al., 2006).The feeding areas are characterized by bottom topography, water column structure, currents, and tidesthat combine to physically concentrate zooplankton into extremely dense patches (Wishner et al., 1988;Murison and Gaskin, 1989; Macaulay et al., 1995; Beardsley et al., 1996; Baumgartner et al., 2003).Acoustics and Hearing - Most of the sounds produced by right whales range in frequency from 0.02 to 15kHz (dominant frequency range from 0.02 to less than 2 kHz; durations typically range from 0.01 tomultiple seconds) with some sounds having multiple harmonics (Parks and Tyack, 2005). Recentmorphometric analyses of northern right whale inner ears estimates a hearing range of approximately 0.01to 22 kHz based on established marine mammal models (Parks et al., 2004; Parks and Tyack, 2005; Parkset al., 2007). In addition, Parks et al. (2007) estimated the functional hearing range for right whales to be15 Hz to 18 kHz. Nowacek et al (2004) observed that exposure to short tones and down sweeps, rangingin frequency from 0.5 to 4.5 kHz, induced an alteration in behavior (received levels of 133 to 148 dB), butexposure to sounds produced by vessels (dominant frequency range of 0.05 to 0.5 kHz) did not produceany behavioral response (received levels of 132 to 142 dB).Distribution - Right whales occur in sub-polar to temperate waters. The North Atlantic right whale washistorically widely distributed, ranging from latitudes of 60° N to 20° N, prior to serious declines inabundance due to intensive whaling (NMFS, 2006b; Reeves et al., 2007). North Atlantic right whales arefound primarily in continental shelf waters between Florida and Nova Scotia. Most sightings areconcentrated within five high-use areas: coastal waters of the southeastern U.S. (Georgia and Florida),Cape Cod and Massachusetts bays, the Great South Channel, the Bay of Fundy, and the Nova ScotianShelf (Winn et al., 1986; NMFS, 2005a). Of these, one calving and two feeding areas in U.S. waters aredesignated as critical habitat for North Atlantic right whales under the ESA (NMFS, 1994; NMFS, 2005a)(Figure 3.7-1). The critical habitat designated waters off Georgia and northern Florida are the only knowncalving ground for western North Atlantic right whales, with use concentrated in the winter (as early asNovember and through March) (Winn et al., 1986), although, according to NMFS, some calving alsotakes place off of southern North Carolina. The feeding grounds of Cape Cod Bay, which haveindividuals in February through April (Winn et al., 1986; Hamilton and Mayo, 1990), and the Great SouthChannel east of Cape Cod, with use in April through June (Winn et al., 1986; Kenney et al., 1995), havealso been designated as critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale (Figure 3.7-1).Most North Atlantic right whale sightings follow a well-defined seasonal migratory pattern throughseveral consistently utilized habitats (Winn et al., 1986). It should be noted, however, that someindividuals may be sighted in these habitats outside the typical time of year and that migration routes arepoorly known (there may be a regular offshore component).During the spring through early summer, North Atlantic right whales are found on feeding grounds off thenortheastern U.S. and Canada. During the winter (as early as November and through March), NorthAtlantic right whales may be found in coastal waters off North Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida(Winn et al., 1986).VACAPES OPAREA North Atlantic Right Whale Occurrence - During winter, North Atlantic rightwhales may occur inshore of the shelf break throughout the VACAPES OPAREA. Sightings observedduring spring and fall are likely of right whales transiting the area on their migration to and from breedinggrounds farther south or feeding grounds farther north. Therefore, North Atlantic right whales would be3-153 March 2009

GAFLSCWVNCPAVAMDDENJ80°W75°W70°W65°W45°NMaine45°NVermontGrand Mann CCANew HampshireNew YorkMassachusettsRoseway Basin CCAConnecticutRhode IslandPennsylvaniaOhio40°NNew Jersey40°NWest VirginiaMarylandDistrict of ColumbiaDelawareVirginiaTennesseeVACAPES OPAREANorth Carolina35°N35°NSouth CarolinaGeorgia30°N30°NATLANTIC OCEANFlorida80°W75°W70°W65°WLegendVACAPES OPAREAFigure 3.7-1U.S. Critical HabitatU.S. Mandatory Ship Reporting SystemCanadian Conservation Area0 50 100 200 300 400Nautical MilesSources: Ranges and OPAREAS from FACSFAC JAX Inst 3210.1Hand NWAS, FTRD May 2000, NMFS (1994), USCG (1999), DFO (2003)Designated Critical Habitats,Conservation Areas, & MandatoryShip Reporting Zones for NorthAtlantic Right WhalesVACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-154

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsexpected to occur throughout the nearshore waters of the VACAPES OPAREA during these seasons.North Atlantic right whales should occur farther north on their feeding grounds during summer and arenot expected in the Study Area. However, they can occasionally occur here during summer as evidencedby the few sighting and stranding records near the VACAPES OPAREA (DoN, 2008a). As noted byGaskin (1982), North Atlantic right whales might be seen anywhere off the Atlantic U.S. throughout theyear. North Atlantic right whale sightings in very deep offshore waters of the western North Atlantic areinfrequent (Knowlton et al., 2002). However, there is limited evidence suggesting that a regular offshorecomponent exists to their distributional and migratory cycle. This evidence includes a rare occurrence atBermuda; off-shelf excursions by satellite-tracked individuals (Mate et al., 1997); disappearance of rightwhales from most coastal habitats in winter; genetic and sighting data, indicating there are additionalsummer grounds; and right whale individuals sighted past the continental shelf break off Florida.Lower Chesapeake Bay North Atlantic Right Whale Occurrence - Year-round sightings of the NorthAtlantic right whale near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay should be anticipated based on available sightingdata from the mid-Atlantic region (DoN, 2007b). Knowlton, et al. (2002) reported that sightings near theChesapeake Bay primarily occur in October through December, February, and March, and noted that theslight peaks they detected in November, December, and March coincide with the migratory time frame.VACAPES OPAREA North Atlantic Right Whale Density - The density estimates for training areaswhere explosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided inTable 3.7-1. Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a). The low densityestimates, which likely reflect the low number of animals, do not signify there will be no animals in thoseareas. Although rare, North Atlantic right whales may occur in any warning area at any given time.Similarly, the summer estimates reflect right whale migration patterns since animals are likely to be onnorthern feeding grounds in this season. However, North Atlantic right whales may occur any where inthe U.S. Atlantic throughout the year (Gaskin, 1982).3.7.2.6 Sei WhaleAdult sei whales are up to 18 m in length and are mostly dark gray in color with a lighter belly, often withmottling on the back (Jefferson et al., 1993). In the North Atlantic Ocean, the major prey species arecopepods and krill (Kenney et al., 1985).Status and Management - The International Whaling Commission (IWC) recognizes three sei whalestocks in the North Atlantic: Nova Scotia, Iceland-Denmark Strait, and Northeast Atlantic (Perry et al.1999). The Nova Scotia Stock occurs in U.S. Atlantic waters (Waring et al. 2008). The best abundanceestimate for sei whales in the western North Atlantic is 207; however this is considered conservative dueto uncertainties in population movements and structure (Waring et al. 2008). The sei whale is under thejurisdiction of the NMFS. A draft recovery plan for fin and sei whales was released in 1998 (NMFS1998b). It has since been determined that the two species should have separate recovery plans. Theindependent recovery plan for the sei whale has not yet been issued; however, the species is listed asendangered under the ESA.Habitat - Sei whales are most often found in deep, oceanic waters of the cool temperate zone. Sei whalesappear to prefer regions of steep bathymetric relief, such as the continental shelf break, canyons, or basinssituated between banks and ledges (Kenney and Winn, 1987; Schilling et al., 1992; Gregr and Trites,2001; Best and Lockyer, 2002). These areas are often the location of persistent hydrographic features,which may be important factors in concentrating prey, especially copepods. On the feeding grounds, thedistribution is largely associated with oceanic frontal systems (Horwood, 1987). Characteristics ofpreferred breeding grounds are unknown. Horwood (1987) noted that sei whales prefer oceanic watersand are rarely found in marginal seas; historical whaling catches were usually from deep water, and landstation catches were usually taken from along or just off the edges of the continental shelf.3-155 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsAcoustics and Hearing – Sei whale vocalizations have been recorded only on a few occasions. Duringwinter months off Hawaii, Rankin and Barlow (2007a) recorded downsweep calls exhibiting two distinctfrequency ranges that were attributed to sei whales: the frequency ranges were from 100 to 44 Hz andfrom 39 to 21 Hz with the former range usually shorter in duration. Baumgartner et al. (2008)documented a down sweep call attributed to sei whales in the Great South Channel of the northwestAtlantic which are similar to the frequency-modulated (100 Hz to 44 Hz) calls recorded by Ranken andBarlow (2007a) from sei whales in the Pacific Ocean. Recordings from the North Atlantic consisted ofpaired sequences (0.5 to 0.8 sec, separated by 0.4 to 1.0 sec) of 10 to 20 short (4 milliseconds [msec])frequency-modulated (FM) sweeps between 1.5 and 3.5 kHz; source level was not known (Thomson andRichardson, 1995). While no data on hearing availability are available for this species, Ketten (1997)hypothesized that mysticetes have acute infrasonic hearing.Distribution - Sei whales have a worldwide distribution but are found primarily in cold temperate tosubpolar latitudes rather than in the tropics or near the poles (Horwood, 1987). Sei whales spend thesummer months feeding in the subpolar higher latitudes and return to the lower latitudes to calve in thewinter. For the most part, the location of winter breeding areas remains a mystery (Rice, 1998; Perry etal., 1999).In the western North Atlantic Ocean, sei whales occur primarily from Georges Bank north to Davis Strait(northeast Canada, between Greenland and Baffin Island) (Perry et al., 1999). Sei whales are not knownto be common in most U.S. Atlantic waters (NMFS, 1998b). Peak abundance in U.S. waters occurs fromwinter through spring (mid-March through mid-June), primarily around the edges of Georges Bank(CETAP, 1982; Stimpert et al., 2003). The distribution of the Nova Scotia stock might extend along theU.S. coast at least to North Carolina (NMFS, 1998b). The hypothesis is that the Nova Scotia stock movesfrom spring feeding grounds on or near Georges Bank, to the Scotian Shelf in June and July, eastward toperhaps Newfoundland and the Grand Banks in late summer, then back to the Scotian Shelf in fall, andoffshore and south in winter (Mitchell and Chapman, 1977).VACAPES OPAREA Sei Whale Occurrence - The winter range of most rorquals (blue, fin, sei, andminke whales) is hypothesized to be in offshore waters (Kellogg, 1928; Gaskin, 1982). During thesummer, sei whales are generally farther north on feeding grounds around the eastern Scotian Shelf orGrand Banks; however, sightings within the VACAPES OPAREA during this time of year may representindividuals making early or late migrations to the feeding grounds (DoN, 2008a). Sei whales may occurthroughout the VACAPES OPAREA year-round, but are probably more likely to occur in deeper offshorewaters.Lower Chesapeake Bay Sei Whale Occurrence - Sei whales are considered extralimital in the lowerChesapeake Bay region.VACAPES OPAREA Sei Whale Density - There were not sufficient data available to estimate a densityfor the Study Area, nor is there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stock assessment report (DoN,2007a). Lack of sighting data for density estimates is not indicative of the absence of sei whales as theyare difficult to distinguish from other rorquals at sea.3.7.2.7 Sperm WhaleThe sperm whale is the largest toothed whale species. Adult females can reach 12 m in length, while adultmales measure as much as 18 m in length (Jefferson et al., 1993). Sperm whales prey on largemesopelagic squids and other cephalopods, as well as demersal fish and benthic invertebrates (Fiscus andRice, 1974; Rice, 1989; Clarke, 1996).Status and Management - Sperm whales are classified as endangered under the ESA (NMFS 2006d),although they are globally not in any immediate danger of extinction. The current combined best estimate3-156 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsof sperm whale abundance from Florida to the Bay of Fundy in the western North Atlantic Ocean is 4,804individuals (Waring et al. 2008). Stock structure for sperm whales in the North Atlantic is unknown(Dufault et al. 1999). The sperm whale is under the jurisdiction of the NMFS. The draft recovery plan forthe sperm whale was released in June 2006 for public comment (NMFS 2006d). In January 2007, NMFSinitiated a 5-yr review for the sperm whale under the ESA (NMFS 2007a).Habitat - Sperm whale distribution can be variable but is generally associated with waters over thecontinental shelf edge, continental slope, and offshore waters (CETAP, 1982; Hain et al., 1985; Smith etal., 1996; Waring et al., 2001; Davis et al., 2002). Rice (1989) noted a strong offshore preference bysperm whales.In some areas, sperm whale densities have been correlated with high secondary productivity and steepunderwater topography (Jaquet and Whitehead, 1996). Data from the Gulf of Mexico suggest that spermwhales adjust their movements to stay in or near cold-core rings (Davis et al., 2000; 2002), whichdemonstrate that sperm whales can shift their movements in response to prey density.Off the eastern U.S., sperm whales are found in regions of pronounced horizontal temperature gradients,such as along the edges of the Gulf Stream and within warm-core rings (Waring et al., 1993; Jaquet andWhitehead 1996; Griffin, 1999). Fritts et al. (1983) reported sighting sperm whales associated with theGulf Stream. Waring et al. (2003) conducted a deepwater survey south of Georges Bank in 2002 andexamined fine-scale habitat use by sperm whales. Sperm whales were located in waters characterized bysea-surface temperatures of 23.2º to 24.9º C and bottom depths of 325 to 2,300 m (Waring et al., 2003).Acoustics and Hearing – Sperm whales typically produce short-duration (less than 30 ms), repetitivebroadband clicks used for communication and echolocation. These clicks range in frequency from 0.1 to30 kHz, with dominant frequencies between the 2 to 4 kHz and 10 to 16 kHz ranges (Thomson andRichardson, 1995). It has been shown that sperm whales may produce clicks during 81 percent of theirdive period, specifically 64 percent of the time during their descent phases (Watwood et al., 2006). Theanatomy of the sperm whale’s inner and middle ear indicates an ability to best hear high-frequency toultrasonic frequency sounds. They may also possess better low-frequency hearing than other odontocetes,although not as low as many baleen whales (Ketten, 1992). The auditory brainstem response (ABR)technique used on a stranded neonatal sperm whale indicated it could hear sounds from 2.5 to 60 kHzwith best sensitivity to frequencies between 5 and 20 kHz (Ridgway and Carder, 2001).Distribution - Sperm whales are found from tropical to polar waters in all oceans of the world betweenapproximately 70º N and 70º S (Rice, 1998). Females are normally restricted to areas with SSTs greaterthan approximately 15° C, whereas males, and especially the largest males, can be found in waters as farpoleward as the pack ice with temperatures close to 0° (Rice, 1989). The thermal limits on femaledistribution correspond approximately to the 40° parallels (50° in the North Pacific) (Whitehead, 2003).Sperm whales are the most-frequently sighted whale seaward of the continental shelf off the eastern U.S.(CETAP, 1982; Kenney and Winn, 1987; Waring et al., 1993). In Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zonewaters, sperm whales appear to have a distinctly seasonal distribution (CETAP, 1982; Scott and Sadove,1997). Although concentrations shift depending on the season, sperm whales generally occur in AtlanticEEZ waters year-round.Mating may occur December through August, with the peak breeding season falling in the spring (NMFS2006d); however location of specific breeding grounds is unknown.VACAPES OPAREA Sperm Whale Occurrence - Worldwide, sperm whales exhibit a strong affinity fordeep waters beyond the continental shelf break (Rice, 1989). Sighting records in the VACAPESOPAREA support this habitat preference (DoN, 2008a). Areas of greatest concentration are expected inwaters over the continental slope and the continental rise near the center of the VACAPES OPAREA3-157 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammals(DoN, 2008a). These area concentrations are likely influenced by localized prey concentrations, due toupwelling associated within the Gulf Stream meanders and eddies, as well as areas of steep bottomtopography. Sperm whales may occur seaward of the shelf break throughout the VACAPES OPAREAduring all seasons.Lower Chesapeake Bay Sperm Whale Occurrence - Sperm whales are considered extralimital in thelower Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES OPAREA Sperm Whale Density - The density estimates for training areas where explosionsand/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1. Methods andresults are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a). Density is not expected to be uniform across thewarning area. Sperm whales will likely be concentrated in waters near and seaward of the shelf breakbased on habitat preferences. The higher density estimated for summer likely reflects greater surveyeffort in offshore areas during the summer as compared to other seasons.3.7.2.8 West Indian ManateeThe West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) is a rotund, slow-moving animal, which reaches amaximum length of 3.9 m (Jefferson, et al., 1993). They have an unusually low metabolic rate and a highthermal conductance that leads to energetic stress in winter (Bossart et al., 2002). Manatees areherbivores that feed on a wide variety of submerged, floating, and emergent vegetation, but they alsoingest invertebrates (USFWS, 2001; Courbis and Worthy, 2003; Reich and Worthy, 2006).Status and Management - Manatees are classified as endangered under the ESA, and managed under thejurisdiction of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In the most recent revision of the manatee recoveryplan, it was concluded that, based on movement patterns, manatees around Florida should be divided intofour relatively discrete management units or subpopulations, each representing a significant portion of thespecies’ range (USFWS, 2001). Manatees found along the Atlantic U.S. coast make up twosubpopulations: the Atlantic Region and the Upper St. Johns River Region (USFWS, 2001). Manateesfrom the western coast of Florida make up the other two subpopulations: the Northwest Region and theSouthwest Region (USFWS, 2001).Manatee numbers are assessed by aerial surveys during the winter months when manatees areconcentrated in warm-water refuges. Aerial surveys conducted in February 2007 produced a preliminaryabundance estimate of 2,812 individuals (FMRI, 2007). Along Florida’s Gulf Coast, observers counted1,400 manatees, while observers on the Atlantic coast counted 1,412.Habitat - Sightings of manatees are restricted to warm freshwater, estuarine, and extremely nearshorecoastal waters. Manatees occur in very shallow waters of 2 to 4 m in depth (7 to 13 feet) generally closeto shore (approximately less than 1 km) (Beck et al., 2004). Shallow seagrass beds close to deep channelsare preferred feeding areas in coastal and riverine habitats (Lefebvre, et al., 2000; USFWS, 2001). WestIndian manatees are frequently located in secluded canals, creeks, embayments, and lagoons near themouths of coastal rivers and sloughs. These areas serve as locations of feeding, resting, mating, andcalving (USFWS, 2001). Estuarine and brackish waters with access to natural and artificial freshwatersources, are typical West Indian manatee habitat (USFWS, 2001). When ambient water temperaturesdrop below about 20° C in fall and winter, migration to natural or anthropogenic warm-water sourcestakes place (Irvine, 1983). Effluents from sewage treatment plants are important sources of freshwater forWest Indian manatees in the Caribbean Sea (Rathbun, et al., 1985). Manatees are also observed drinkingfresh water that flows out of the mouths of rivers (Lefebvre et al., 2001) and out of offered hoses atharbors (Fertl et al., 2005).3-158 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsAcoustics and HearingWest Indian manatees produce a variety of squeak-like sounds that have a typical frequency range of 0.6to 12 kHz (dominant frequency range from 2 to 5 kHz), and last 0.25 to 0.5 s (Steel and Morris, 1982;Thomson and Richardson, 1995; Niezrecki et al., 2003). Recently, vocalizations below 0.1 kHz have alsobeen recorded (Frisch and Frisch, 2003; Frisch, 2006). Overall, West Indian manatee vocalizations areconsidered relatively stereotypic, with little variation between isolated populations examined (i.e., Floridaand Belize; Nowacek et al., 2003). However, vocalizations have been newly shown to possess nonlineardynamic characteristics (e.g., subharmonics or abrupt, unpredictable transitions between frequencies),which could aid in individual recognition and mother-calf communication (Mann et al., 2006). Averagesource levels for vocalizations have been calculated to range from 90 to 138 dB re: 1 Pa (average: 100 to112 dB re 1 Pa) (Nowacek et al., 2003; Phillips et al., 2004). Behavioral data on two animals indicate anunderwater hearing range of approximately 0.4 to 46 kHz, with best sensitivity between 16 and 18 kHz(Gerstein et al., 1999), while earlier electrophysiological studies indicated best sensitivity from 1 to 1.5kHz (Bullock et al., 1982).Distribution - Manatees occur in warm, subtropical, and tropical waters of the western North AtlanticOcean, from the southeastern U.S. to Central America, northern South America, and the West Indies(Lefebvre et al., 2001). Manatees occur along both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida. Manatees aresometimes reported in the Florida Keys; these sightings are typically in the upper Florida Keys, withsome reports as far south as Key West (Moore, 1951a, 1951b; Beck, 2006a). During winter months, themanatee population confines itself to inshore and inner shelf waters of the southern half of peninsularFlorida and to springs and warm water outfalls (e.g., power plant cooling water outfalls) as far north asthe Florida/Georgia border along the U.S. east coast. As water temperatures rise in spring, West Indianmanatees disperse from winter aggregation areas. Manatees are frequently reported in coastal rivers ofGeorgia and South Carolina during warmer months (Lefebvre et al., 2001).Historically, manatees were likely restricted to southernmost Florida during winter and expanded theirdistribution northward during summer. However, industrial development has made warm-water refugesavailable (e.g., power plant effluent plumes), and the introduction of several exotic aquatic plant specieshas expanded the available food supply. These factors have enabled an expansion of West Indianmanatee winter range (USFWS, 2001; Laist and Reynolds III, 2005).Several patterns of seasonal movement are known along the Atlantic coast ranging from year-roundresidence to long-distance migration (Deutsch et al., 2003). Individuals may be highly consistent inseasonal movement patterns and show strong fidelity to warm and winter ranges, both within and acrossyears (Deutsch et al., 2003).Perhaps the most famous long distance movements of any West Indian manatee were exhibited by theanimal known as “Chessie,” who gained fame in the summer of 1995 by swimming to Rhode Island,returning to Florida for the winter, and traveling north again to Virginia where he was seen in 1996. Inearly September 2001, “Chessie” was once again sighted in Virginia. More recently, in August 2006, aWest Indian manatee was sighted in waters off Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey, Massachusetts, andin the Hudson River (Beck, 2006b; Anonymous, 2006, Kenney, 2007)VACAPES OPAREA Manatee Occurrence - Manatees are considered extralimital in the VACAPESOPAREA.Lower Chesapeake Bay Manatee Occurrence - Individual manatees are known to make long distancemovements up the Atlantic coast, as noted earlier. The manatee is considered to be a regular part of themarine fauna of Chesapeake Bay (Barco, 2007). One of the first published accounts for a manatee wasprovided by McAtee (1950); however, not enough information was available to determine the date or3-159 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsexact location of its occurrence. There are occurrence records for manatees in Virginia and NorthCarolina area during May through November. Based on this species’ known sensitivity to cool watertemperatures, it is not surprising that there are no documented occurrences during the winter.The manatee is well-known to make its way into rivers, including up tributaries and creeks. Thenorthernmost sighting in Chesapeake Bay is from the Potomac River at Washington, D.C., during August1980 (Rathbun et al., 1982). During late June 2002, a manatee made its way up the James River and wassighted in Richmond. There were multiple manatee sightings during late September/early October 1992up the Elizabeth River; based on the temporal and spatial proximity of the records, it was likely the sameindividual. Likewise, Schwartz (1995) mentioned a sighting of three individuals during August-September 1993 in the Elizabeth River Intracoastal Canal to Currituck Sound in North Carolina.Movements by manatees might take place either in nearshore waters or through inland waterways. Thereis only one documented stranding of a manatee in Chesapeake Bay – an October 1980 stranding atBuckroe Beach (Blaylock, 1985).Of special interest is an apparently unintentional capture of a manatee in a seine by fishermen in lateSeptember 1908 at Ocean View (Duncan, 1908; Rathbun et al., 1982) and a recent – late July 2007 –sighting of a manatee at Rock Hall Marina in upper Chesapeake Bay (Beck, 2007).VACAPES Study Area Manatee Density - Sufficient data does not exist to calculate density estimates inthe lower Chesapeake Bay.3.7.2.9 Non-Endangered Species Act-Listed Marine MammalsTwenty-seven non-threatened/non-endangered marine mammal species identified in Table 3.7-3 may beaffected by the proposed activities in the VACAPES OPAREA and six within the Lower ChesapeakeBay. Affected species include those identified as having a regular or rare occurrence within the StudyArea. Within the OPAREA these species include two baleen whale species and 25 toothed whale species.Within the Chesapeake Bay three toothed whale species and three pinniped species (seals) occur.Atlantic Spotted DolphinAtlantic spotted dolphin adults are up to 2.3 m long and can weigh as much as 143 kilograms (kg)(Jefferson et al., 1993). Atlantic spotted dolphins are born spotless and develop spots as they age (Perrinet al., 1994b; Herzing, 1997). There is marked regional variation in adult body size (Perrin et al., 1987).There are two forms: a robust, heavily spotted form that inhabits the continental shelf, usually foundwithin 250 to 350 km of the coast and a smaller, less-spotted form that inhabits offshore waters (Perrin etal., 1994b). Atlantic spotted dolphins feed on small cephalopods, fish, and benthic invertebrates (Perrin etal., 1994b).Status and management— The best estimate of Atlantic spotted dolphin abundance in the U.S. AtlanticExclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is 50,978 individuals (Waring et al. 2008). Recent genetic evidencesuggests that there are at least two populations in the western North Atlantic (Adams and Rosel 2006), aswell as possible continental shelf and offshore segregations. Atlantic populations are divided along alatitudinal boundary corresponding roughly to Cape Hatteras (Adams and Rosel 2006). The Atlanticspotted dolphin is under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat— Atlantic spotted dolphins occupy both continental shelf and offshore habitats. The large,heavily spotted coastal form typically occurs over the continental shelf inshore of or near the 185-misobath, 8 to 20 km from shore (Perrin et al., 1994b; Davis et al., 1998; Perrin, 2002b). There are alsofrequent sightings beyond the continental shelf break in the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and off theU.S. Atlantic Coast (Mills and Rademacher, 1996; Roden and Mullin, 2000; Fulling et al., 2003; Mullinand Fulling, 2003; Mullin et al., 2004). Atlantic spotted dolphins are found commonly in inshore waters3-160 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalssouth of Chesapeake Bay as well as over continental shelf break and slope waters north of this region(Payne et al., 1984; Mullin and Fulling, 2003). Sightings have also been made along the northern wall ofthe Gulf Stream and its associated warm-core ring features (Waring et al., 1992).Acoustics and Hearing— A variety of sounds including whistles, echolocation clicks, squawks, barks,growls, and chirps have been recorded for the Atlantic spotted dolphin (Thomson and Richardson, 1995).Whistles have dominant frequencies below 20 kHz (range: 7.1 to 14.5 kHz) but multiple harmonicsextend above 100 kHz, while burst pulses consist of frequencies above 20 kHz (dominant frequency ofapproximately 40 kHz) (Lammers et al., 2003). Other sounds, such as squawks, barks, growls, and chirps,typically range in frequency from 0.1 to 8 kHz (Thomson and Richardson, 1995). Recently recordedecholocation clicks have two dominant frequency ranges at 40 to 50 kHz and 110 to 130 kHz, dependingon source level (i.e., lower source levels typically correspond to lower frequencies and higher frequenciesto higher source levels (Au and Herzing, 2003). Echolocation click source levels as high as 210 dB re 1Pa-m peak-to-peak have been recorded (Au and Herzing, 2003). Spotted dolphins in The Bahamas werefrequently recorded during agonistic/aggressive interactions with bottlenose dolphins (and their ownspecies) to produce squawks (0.2 to 12 kHz broad band burst pulses; males and females), screams (5.8 to9.4 kHz whistles; males only), barks (0.2 to 20 kHz burst pulses; males only), and synchronized squawks(0.1-15 kHz burst pulses; males only in a coordinated group) (Herzing, 1996). There has been no datacollected on Atlantic spotted dolphin hearing ability. However, odontocetes are generally adapted to hearhigh-frequencies (Ketten, 1997).Distribution - Atlantic spotted dolphins are distributed in warm-temperate and tropical Atlantic watersfrom approximately 45º N to 35º S; in the western North Atlantic, this translates to waters from NewEngland to Venezuela, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea (Perrin et al., 1987).Peak calving periods in The Bahamas are early spring and late fall (Herzing, 1997); however in thewestern Atlantic breeding times and locations are largely unknown.VACAPES OPAREA Atlantic spotted dolphin Occurrence - Atlantic spotted dolphins may occur in bothcontinental shelf and offshore waters of the Study Area year-round. Atlantic spotted dolphins arecommonly found in inshore waters south of Chesapeake Bay (Payne et al. 1984; Mullin andFulling, 2003). The northern wall of the Gulf Stream and its associated warm-core ring features likelyinfluences occurrence of Atlantic spotted dolphins in this region.Lower Chesapeake Bay Atlantic spotted dolphin occurrence - The Atlantic spotted dolphin is consideredextralimital in the Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area Atlantic spotted dolphin density - The density estimates for training areas whereexplosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1.Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a).Atlantic White-sided DolphinThe Atlantic white-sided dolphin has a stocky body with a short, thick beak and tall, falcate dorsal fin.Adults reach 2.5 to 2.8 m in length (Jefferson et al., 1993). This species feeds on pelagic andbenthipelagic fish, such as capelin, herring, hake, sand lance, smelt, and cod, as well as squids (Katona etal., 1978; Sergeant et al., 1980; Kenney et al., 1985; Selzer and Payne, 1988; Waring et al., 1990;Weinrich et al., 2001).Status and management— Based on the distribution of sightings, strandings, and bycatch records, threestocks have been suggested for Atlantic white-sided dolphins in the western North Atlantic: Gulf ofMaine, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Labrador Sea (Palka et al., 1997). However, recent mitochondrial DNAanalyses indicate no definite stock structure exists (Amaral et al., 2001). The total number of Atlantic3-161 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalswhite-sided dolphins along the U.S. and Canadian Atlantic coast is unknown. The best estimate ofabundance for the western North Atlantic is 63,368 individuals (Waring et al., 2008). The Atlantic whitesideddolphin is under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat — The Atlantic white-sided dolphin is found primarily in continental shelf waters up to 100 mdeep (CETAP, 1982; Selzer and Payne, 1988; Mate et al., 1994). Atlantic white-sided dolphin occurrencein the northeastern U.S. probably reflects fluctuations in food availability, as well as oceanographicconditions (Selzer and Payne, 1988).Acoustics and Hearing — The only information available on Atlantic white-sided vocalizations is thatthe dominant frequency is 6 to 15 kHz (Thomson and Richardson, 1995). There are no hearing dataavailable for this species.Distribution — Atlantic white-sided dolphins are found in cold-temperate to subpolar waters of the NorthAtlantic, from New England to France, north to southern Greenland, Iceland, and southern Norway(Jefferson et al., 1993). This species is most common over the continental shelf from Hudson Canyonnorth to the Gulf of Maine (Palka et al., 1997). Virginia and North Carolina appear to represent thesouthern edge of their range (Testaverde and Mead, 1980).Calving occurs during the summer with peaks in the months of June and July (Jefferson et.al. 2008);however, locations are largely unknown.VACAPES OPAREA Atlantic white-sided dolphin Occurrence - Due to this species’ preference forcolder waters, the Gulf Stream may be a southern boundary for Atlantic white-sided dolphin distribution.This species may occur primarily in waters over the continental shelf throughout the VACAPESOPAREA year-round. However, distribution may also range farther offshore, which is evidenced by thesighting records offshore in waters over the continental slope in and near the VACAPES OPAREA (DoN,2008a).Lower Chesapeake Bay Atlantic white-sided dolphin occurrence - The Atlantic white-sided dolphin isconsidered extralimital in the Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area Atlantic white-sided dolphin density - There were not sufficient data available toestimate a density for the Study Area. Nor was there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stockassessment used to derive density (DoN, 2007a). Lack of density estimates is not indicative of theabsence of animals.Beaked WhalesBased on available data, the following five beaked whale species may be affected by the proposedactivities in the VACAPES Study Area: Cuvier’s beaked whales and four members of the genusMesoplodon (True’s, Gervais’, Blainville’s, and Sowerby’s beaked whales). There is one extralimitalstranding record of a northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) inshore of the VACAPESOPAREA (DoN, 2008a); however, this species is expected to occur in cold temperate to subarctic waterswhich are found much farther north of the VACAPES Study Area and are not likely to be affected by theproposed activities. Therefore, the northern bottlenose whale is not discussed further.Cuvier’s beaked whales are relatively robust compared to other beaked whale species. Male and femaleCuvier’s beaked whales may reach 7.5 and 7.0 m in length, respectively (Jefferson et al., 1993).Mesoplodon species have maximum reported adult lengths of 6.2 m (Mead, 1989). Stomach contentanalyses of captured and stranded individuals suggest beaked whales are deep divers that feed by suctionon mesopelagic fish, squids, and deepwater benthic invertebrates (Heyning, 1989; Heyning and Mead,1996; Santos et al., 2001; MacLeod et al., 2003). Stomach contents of Cuvier’s beaked whales rarelycontain fish, while stomach contents of Mesoplodon species frequently do (MacLeod et al., 2003).3-162 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsStatus and management— The best estimate of Mesoplodon spp. and Cuvier’s beaked whale abundancecombined in the western North Atlantic is 3,513 individuals (Waring et al. 2008). A recent study ofglobal phylogeographic structure of Cuvier’s beaked whales suggested that some regions show a highlevel of differentiation (Dalebout et al. 2005); however, Dalebout et al., (2005) could not discern finerscalepopulation differences within the North Atlantic. Beaked whales are under the jurisdiction ofNMFS.Habitat - World-wide, beaked whales normally inhabit continental slope and deep oceanic waters (>200m) (Waring et al., 2001; Cañadas et al., 2002; Pitman, 2002; MacLeod et al., 2004; Ferguson et al., 2006;MacLeod and Mitchell, 2006). Beaked whales are only occasionally reported in waters over thecontinental shelf (Pitman, 2002). Distribution of Mesoplodon spp. in the North Atlantic may relate towater temperature (MacLeod, 2000a). The Blainville’s and Gervais’ beaked whales occur in warmersouthern waters, in contrast to Sowerby’s and True’s beaked whales that are more northern (MacLeod,2000b). Beaked whale abundance off the eastern U.S. may be highest in association with the Gulf Streamand the warm-core rings it develops (Waring et al., 1992). In summer, the continental shelf break off thenortheastern U.S. is primary habitat (Waring et al., 2001).Acoustics and Hearing - Sounds recorded from beaked whales are divided into two categories: whistlesand pulsed sounds (clicks); whistles likely serve a communicative function and pulsed sounds areimportant in foraging and/or navigation (Johnson et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2005b; MacLeod andD'Amico, 2006; Tyack et al., 2006). Whistle frequencies are about 2 to 12 kHz, while pulsed soundsrange in frequency from 300 Hz to 135 kHz; however, as noted by MacLeod and D’Amico (2006), higherfrequencies may not be recorded due to equipment limitations. Whistles recorded from free-rangingCuvier’s beaked whales off Greece ranged in frequency from 8 to 12 kHz, with an upsweep of about 1 sec(Manghi et al., 1999), while pulsed sounds had a narrow peak frequency of 13 to 17 kHz, lasting 15 to 44sec in duration (Frantzis et al., 2002). Short whistles and chirps from a stranded subadult Blainville'sbeaked whale ranged in frequency from slightly less than 1 to almost 6 kHz (Caldwell and Caldwell,1971a).Recent studies incorporating DTAGs (miniature sound and orientation recording tag) attached toBlainville’s beaked whales in the Canary Islands and Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Ligurian Searecorded high-frequency echolocation clicks (duration: 175 microseconds (s) for Blainville’s and 200 to250 s for Cuvier’s) with dominant frequency ranges from about 20 to over 40 kHz (limit of recordingsystem was 48 kHz) and only at depths greater than 200 m (656 ft) (Johnson et al., 2004; Madsen et al.,2005b; Zimmer et al., 2005; Tyack et al., 2006). The source level of the Blainville’s beaked whales’clicks were estimated to range from 200 to 220 dB re 1 Pa-m peak-to-peak (Johnson et al., 2004), whilethey were 214 dB re 1 Pa-m peak-to-peak for the Cuvier’s beaked whale (Zimmer et al., 2005). Midfrequencysounds including a frequency-modulated pure tone, and three FM and AM pulsed sounds(between 6 and 16 kHz) were attributed to three cow/calf pairs of Blainville‘s beaked whales duringshipboard visual/acoustic surveys near the Hawaiian islands (Rankin and Barlow, 2007b).From anatomical examination of their ears, it is presumed that beaked whales are predominantly adaptedto best hear ultrasonic frequencies (MacLeod, 1999; Ketten, 2000). Beaked whales have well-developedsemi-circular canals (typically for vestibular function but may function differently in beaked whales)compared to other cetacean species, and they may be more sensitive than other cetaceans to lowfrequencysounds (MacLeod, 1999; Ketten, 2000). Ketten (2000) remarked on how beaked whale ears(computerized tomography (CT) scans of Cuvier’s, Blainville’s, Sowerby’s, and Gervais’ beaked whaleheads) have anomalously well-developed vestibular elements and heavily reinforced (large bore, strutted)Eustachian tubes and noted that they may impart special resonances and acoustic sensitivities. The onlydirect measure of beaked whale hearing is from a stranded juvenile Gervais’ beaked whale using auditory3-163 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsevoked potential techniques (Cook et al., 2006). The hearing range was 5 to 80 kHz, with greatestsensitivity at 40 and 80 kHz (Cook et al., 2006).Distribution - Cuvier’s beaked whales are the most widely distributed of the beaked whales and arepresent in most regions of all major oceans (Heyning, 1989; MacLeod et al., 2006). This species occupiesalmost all temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters, as well as subpolar and even polar waters in someareas (MacLeod et al., 2006). Blainville’s beaked whales are thought to have a continuous distributionthroughout tropical, subtropical, and warm-temperate waters of the world’s oceans; they occasionallyoccur in cold-temperate areas (MacLeod et al., 2006). The Gervais’ beaked whale is restricted to warmtemperateand tropical Atlantic waters with records throughout the Caribbean Sea (MacLeod et al., 2006).The Sowerby’s beaked whale is endemic to the North Atlantic; this is considered to be more of atemperate species (MacLeod et al., 2006). In the western North Atlantic, confirmed strandings of True’sbeaked whales are recorded from Nova Scotia to Florida and also in Bermuda (MacLeod et al., 2006).There is also a sighting made southeast of Hatteras Inlet, North Carolina (Tove, 1995).The continental shelf margins from Cape Hatteras to southern Nova Scotia were recently identified asknown “key areas” for beaked whales in a global review by MacLeod and Mitchell (2006).Beaked whale life histories are poorly known, reproductive biology is generally undescribed, and thelocations of specific breeding grounds are unknown.VACAPES OPAREA beaked whale Occurrence - Beaked whale may occur seaward of the continentalshelf break throughout the VACAPES Study Area year-round. Beaked whale sightings in the westernNorth Atlantic Ocean appear to be concentrated in waters between the 200-m isobath and those justbeyond the 2,000-m isobath (DoN, 2008a, 2008b); however this may be an artifact of survey effort andoccurrence may extend into deeper waters as well.Lower Chesapeake Bay beaked whale occurrence - All beaked whale species are considered extralimitalin the Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area beaked whale density - The density estimates for training areas where explosionsand/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1. Methods andresults are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a). Density is not expected to be uniform across thewarning area. Beaked whales will likely be concentrated in waters near and seaward of the shelf breakbased on habitat preferences. The higher density estimated for summer likely reflects greater surveyeffort in offshore areas during the summer as compared to other seasons.Bottlenose DolphinBottlenose dolphins are large and robust with striking regional variations in body size; adult body lengthsrange from 1.9 to 3.8 m (Jefferson et al., 1993). Bottlenose dolphins are opportunistic feeders that utilizenumerous feeding strategies to prey on a variety of fish, cephalopod, and shrimp (Shane, 1990; Wells andScott, 1999).Status and management— Two forms of bottlenose dolphins are recognized in the western NorthAtlantic Ocean: nearshore (coastal) and offshore (Waring et al. 2008). The best estimate for the westernNorth Atlantic coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins is 15,620 (Waring et al., 2008). Currently, a singlewestern North Atlantic offshore stock is recognized seaward of 34 km from the U.S. coastline (Waring etal. 2008). The best population estimate for this stock is 81,588 individuals (Waring et al., 2008).Habitat— Coastal bottlenose dolphins occur in coastal embayments and estuaries as well as in watersover the continental shelf; individuals may exhibit either resident or migratory patterns in coastal areas(Kenney, 1990). Read et al. (2003) found the dolphins occurring in North Carolina bays, sounds, andestuaries to contribute substantially to the coastal bottlenose dolphin population in the area. Bays, sounds,3-164 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsand estuaries are high-use habitats for bottlenose dolphins due to their importance as nursery and feedingareas (Read et al., 2003).Coastal bottlenose dolphins show a temperature-limited distribution, occurring in significantly warmerwaters than the offshore stock, and having a distinct northern boundary (Kenney, 1990). A study of theChesapeake Bay/Virginia coast area showed a much greater probability of sightings with SSTs of 16° to28°C (Armstrong et al., 2005). SST may significantly influence seasonal movements of migrating coastaldolphins along the western Atlantic coast (Barco et al., 1999); these seasonal movements are likely alsoinfluenced by movements of prey resources.The nearshore waters of the Outer Banks serve as winter habitat for coastal bottlenose dolphins (Read etal., 2003). Cape Hatteras represents important habitat for bottlenose dolphins, particularly in winter, asevidenced from concentrations of bottlenose dolphins during recent aerial surveys (Torres et al., 2005).In the western North Atlantic, the greatest concentrations of the offshore stock are along the continentalshelf break (Kenney, 1990). Evidence suggests that there is a distinct spatial separation pf the coastal andoffshore stocks during the summer; however the morphotypes overlap in the winter (Garrison et al., 2003;Torres et. al., 2003). During CETAP surveys, offshore bottlenose dolphins generally were distributedbetween the 200 and 2,000-m isobaths in waters with a mean bottom depth of 846 m from Cape Hatterasto the eastern end of Georges Bank. Geography and temperature also influence the distribution of offshorebottlenose dolphins (Kenney, 1990).Acoustics and Hearing— Sounds emitted by bottlenose dolphins have been classified into two broadcategories: pulsed sounds (including clicks and burst-pulses) and narrow-band continuous sounds(whistles), which usually are frequency modulated. Clicks and whistles have a dominant frequency rangeof 110 to 130 kHz and a source level of 218 to 228 dB re 1 Pa-m peak-to-peak (Au, 1993) and 3.4 to14.5 kHz and 125 to 173 dB re 1 Pa-m, respectively (Ketten, 1998). Whistles are primarily associatedwith communication and can serve to identify specific individuals (i.e., signature whistles) (Caldwell andCaldwell, 1965; Janik et al., 2006). Up to 52 percent of whistles produced by bottlenose dolphin groupswith mother-calf pairs can be classified as signature whistles (Cook et al., 2004). Sound production is alsoinfluenced by group type (single or multiple individuals), habitat, and behavior (Nowacek, 2005). Braycalls (low-frequency vocalizations; majority of energy below 4 kHz), for example, are used whencapturing fishes, specifically sea trout (Salmo trutta) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), in some regions(i.e., Moray Firth, Scotland) (Janik, 2000). Additionally, whistle production has been observed to increasewhile feeding (Acevedo-Gutiérrez and Stienessen, 2004; Cook et al., 2004). Furthermore, both whistlesand clicks have been demonstrated to vary geographically in terms of overall vocal activity, group size,and specific context (e.g., feeding, milling, traveling, and socializing) (Jones and Sayigh, 2002; Zaretskyet al., 2005; Baron, 2006). For example, preliminary research indicates that characteristics of whistlesfrom populations in the northern Gulf of Mexico significantly differ (i.e., in frequency and duration) fromthose in the western north Atlantic (Zaretsky et al., 2005; Baron, 2006).Bottlenose dolphins can typically hear within a broad frequency range of 0.04 to 160 kHz (Au, 1993;Turl, 1993). Electrophysiological experiments suggest that the bottlenose dolphin brain has a dualanalysis system: one specialized for ultrasonic clicks and another for lower-frequency sounds, such aswhistles (Ridgway, 2000). Scientists have reported a range of highest sensitivity between 25 and 70 kHz,with peaks in sensitivity at 25 and 50 kHz (Nachtigall et al., 2000). Recent research on the sameindividuals indicates that auditory thresholds obtained by electrophysiological methods correlate wellwith those obtained in behavior studies, except at the some lower (10 kHz) and higher (80 and 100 kHz)frequencies (Finneran and Houser, 2006).Temporary threshold shifts in hearing have been experimentally induced in captive bottlenose dolphinsusing a variety of noises (i.e., broad-band, pulses) (Ridgway et al., 1997; Schlundt et al., 2000; Nachtigall3-165 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalset al., 2003; Finneran et al., 2005; Mooney et al., 2005; Mooney, 2006). For example, TTS has beeninduced with exposure to a 3 kHz, one-second pulse with sound exposure level (SEL) of 195 dB re 1Pa2-s (Finneran et al., 2005), one-second pulses from 3 to 20 kHz at 192 to 201 dB re 1Pa-m (Schlundtet al., 2000), and octave band noise (4 to 11 kHz) for 50 minutes at 179 dB re 1 Pa-m (Nachtigall et al.,2003). Preliminary research indicates that TTS and recovery after noise exposure are frequency dependentand that an inverse relationship exists between exposure time and sound pressure level associated withexposure (Mooney et al., 2005; Mooney, 2006). Observed changes in behavior were induced with anexposure to a 75 kHz one-second pulse at 178 dB re 1 Pa-m (Ridgway et al., 1997; Schlundt et al.,2000). Finneran et al. (2005) concluded that a SEL of 195 dB re 1 Pa2 s is a reasonable threshold for theonset of TTS in bottlenose dolphins exposed to mid-frequency tones.Distribution— In the western North Atlantic, bottlenose dolphins occur as far north as Nova Scotia butare most common in coastal waters from New England to Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, andsouthward to Venezuela and Brazil (Würsig et al., 2000). Bottlenose dolphins occur seasonally inestuaries and coastal embayments as far north as Delaware Bay (Kenney, 1990) and in waters over theouter continental shelf and inner slope, as far north as Georges Bank (CETAP, 1982; Kenney, 1990).In North Carolina, there is significant overlap between distributions of coastal and offshore dolphinsduring the summer. North of Cape Lookout, there is a separation of the offshore and coastal ecotypes bybottom depth; the coastal form occurs in nearshore waters (40 m deep) (Garrison and Hoggard, 2003); however, south of Cape Lookout to northernFlorida, there is significant spatial overlap between the two stocks. In this region, coastal dolphins may befound in waters as deep as 31 m and 75 km from shore while offshore dolphins may occur in waters asshallow as 13 m (Garrison et al., 2003b). Additional aerial surveys and genetic sampling are required tobetter understand the distribution of the stocks throughout the year.Populations exhibit seasonal migrations regulated by temperature and prey availability (Torres et al.,2005), traveling as far north as New Jersey in summer and as far south as central Florida in winter (Urianet al., 1999).Coastal bottlenose dolphins along the western Atlantic coast may exhibit either resident or migratorypatterns (Waring et.al. 2007). Photo-identification studies support evidence of year-round residentbottlenose dolphin populations in Beaufort and Wilmington, North Carolina (Koster et al., 2000; Waringet al., 2007); these are the northernmost documented sites of year-round residency for bottlenose dolphinsin the western North Atlantic (Koster et al., 2000). Migratory dolphins may enter these areas seasonallyas well, as evidenced by a bottlenose dolphin tagged in 2001 in Virginia Beach who overwintered inwaters between Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout (NMFS-SEFSC, 2001).Bottlenose dolphins are flexible in their timing of reproduction. Seasons of birth for bottlenose dolphinpopulations are likely responses to seasonal patterns of availability of local resources (Urian et al. 1996).There are no specific breeding locations for this species.VACAPES OPAREA bottlenose dolphin Occurrence— Bottlenose dolphins are abundant continentalshelf and inner slope waters throughout the western North Atlantic (CETAP, 1982; Kenney, 1990;Waring et al., 2007). The greatest concentrations of offshore animals are along the continental shelf breakand between the 200 and 2,000-m isobaths (Kenney, 1990; Waring et al., 2007); however, survey effortbiases may underestimate occurrence in deeper, offshore waters. Sighting records and tagging datasuggest that the range of offshore bottlenose dolphins may actually extend into deeper waters (Kenney,1990; Wells et al., 1999a), possibly even over the Hatteras Abyssal Plain just southeast of the VACAPESOPAREA. Bottlenose dolphins also occur in nearshore waters of North Carolina year-round and inVirginia waters seasonally from late April to November (Blaylock, 1988; Barco et al., 1999; NMFS-SEFSC, 2001).3-166 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsLower Chesapeake Bay bottlenose dolphin occurrence - Bottlenose dolphins are known to utilize theChesapeake Bay region between September and November (Barco et al. 1999). A recurring nearshorefront occurs near Cape Henry in the mouth of the Bay (Marmorino et al. 2000); dolphins may use thisarea as feeding habitat, particularly during the fall.Bottlenose dolphins occurring in Chesapeake Bay are part of the coastal migratory stock. Virginia is thesouthernmost state on the coast whose nearshore population consists exclusively of this stock (Swingle1994). The Cape Charles/Fisherman Island area to the north, and the Cape Henry area to the southrepresent important “nursery areas” for the coastal migratory stock (Swingle 1994; Swingle et al. 1995;Barco et al. 1999).Bottlenose dolphins may occur in Chesapeake Bay beginning in about mid-April (Swingle 1994) and areprevalent in lower Chesapeake Bay from May thru October (Swingle 1994; Foss and Reed 2003). Onlysporadic occurrences are noted during the remainder of the year.VACAPES Study Area bottlenose dolphin density - The density estimates for training areas whereexplosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7.1.Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a). Lower density estimates offshoreare not necessarily indicative of fewer animals, but may reflect lower survey efforts in deep water areas.Bryde’s WhaleBryde’s whales usually have three prominent ridges on the rostrum (other rorquals generally have onlyone) (Jefferson et al., 1993). Adults can be up to 15.5 m in length (Jefferson et al., 1993). Bryde’s whalescan be easily confused with sei whales. Bryde’s whales are lunge-feeders, feeding on schooling fish andkrill (Nemoto and Kawamura, 1977; Siciliano et al., 2004; Anderson, 2005).Status and management— No abundance information is currently available for Bryde’s whales in thewestern North Atlantic (Waring et al., 2008). Bryde’s whales are under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat— Bryde’s whales are found both offshore and near the coasts in many regions. The Bryde’swhale appears to have a preference for water temperatures between approximately 15° and 20°C (Yoshidaand Kato, 1999). Bryde’s whales are more restricted to tropical and subtropical waters than other rorquals.Acoustics and HearingBryde’s whales produce low frequency tonal and swept calls similar to those of other rorquals (Oleson etal., 2003). Calls vary regionally, yet all but one of the call types have a fundamental frequency below 60Hz. They last from one-quarter of a second to several seconds and are produced in extended sequences.Heimlich et al. (2005) recently described five tone types. These include two types of alternating tonal“phrases,” a wideband “burst” followed by a tone that occurred in either lower (19 to 30 Hz) or higher (42Hz) frequencies depending on the area, and an “harmonic tone phrase” with a fundamental frequency of26 Hz. No vocalization exceeded 80 Hz. While no data on hearing ability for this species are available,Ketten (1997) hypothesized that mysticetes have acute infrasonic hearing.Distribution— Bryde’s whales are found in subtropical and tropical waters and generally do not rangenorth of 40° in the northern hemisphere or south of 40° in the southern hemisphere (Jefferson et al.,1993).The Bryde’s whale does not have a well-defined breeding season in most areas and locations of specificbreeding areas are unknown.VACAPES OPAREA Bryde’s whale occurrence - There is a general lack of knowledge of this species,particularly in the North Atlantic, although records support a tropical occurrence for the species here(Mead 1977). A few unidentified Bryde’s/sei whale records are also documented near the shelf break offthe coast of Virginia (DoN, 1995). Bryde’s whales may occur seaward of the shoreline in the Study Areayear-round based on occurrences both in coastal and offshore waters in other locales.3-167 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsLower Chesapeake Bay Bryde’s whale occurrence - One Bryde’s whale stranding is recorded from thewinter of 1927 well within Chesapeake Bay (Mead 1977); however, Bryde’s whales are consideredextralimital in Chesapeake Bay.VACAPES Study Area Bryde’s whale density - There were not sufficient data available to estimate adensity for the Study Area, nor is there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stock assessment report(DoN, 2007a). Lack of sighting data for density estimates is not indicative of the absence of Bryde’swhales as they are difficult to distinguish from other rorquals at sea.Clymene DolphinDue to similarity in appearance, Clymene dolphins are easily confused with spinner and short-beakedcommon dolphins (Fertl et al., 2003). The Clymene dolphin, however, is smaller and more robust, with amuch shorter and stockier beak. The Clymene dolphin can reach at least 2 m in length and weights of atleast 85 kg (Jefferson et al., 1993). Clymene dolphins feed on small pelagic fish and squid (Perrin et al.,1981; Perrin and Mead, 1994; Fertl et al., 1997).Status and management — The population in the western North Atlantic is currently considered aseparate stock for management purposes although there is not enough information to distinguish thisstock from the Gulf of Mexico stock(s) (Waring et al. 2008). The best estimate of abundance for thewestern North Atlantic stock of Clymene dolphins is 6,086 individuals (Waring et al. 2008). TheClymene dolphin is under NMFS jurisdiction.Habitat— Clymene dolphins are a tropical to subtropical species, primarily sighted in deep waters wellbeyond the edge of the continental shelf (Fertl et al., 2003). Biogeographically, the Clymene dolphin isfound in the warmer waters of the North Atlantic and is often associated with the North EquatorialCurrent, the Gulf Stream, and the Canary Current (Fertl et al., 2003). In the western North Atlantic,Clymene dolphins were identified primarily in offshore waters east of Cape Hatteras over the continentalslope and are likely to be strongly influenced by oceanographic features of the Gulf Stream (Mullin andFulling, 2003).Acoustics and Hearing— The only data available for this species is a description of their whistles.Clymene dolphin whistle structure is similar to that of other stenellids, but it is generally higher infrequency (range of 6.3 to 19.2 kHz) (Mullin et al., 1994a). There is no empirical data on the hearingability of Clymene dolphins; however, the most sensitive hearing range for odontocetes generally includeshigh frequencies (Ketten, 1997).Distribution— In the western Atlantic Ocean, Clymene dolphins are distributed from New Jersey toBrazil, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea (Fertl et al., 2003; Moreno et al., 2005).Seasonality and location of Clymene dolphin breeding is unknown.VACAPES OPAREA Clymene dolphin Occurrence—The oceanographic features of the Gulf Streamlikely influence the distribution of Clymene dolphins in the Study Area. Based on confirmed sightingsand the preference of this species for warm, deep waters, Clymene dolphins may occur in waters seawardof the shelf break south of the northern wall of the Gulf Stream. Clymene dolphins may occur north of theGulf Stream’s warm water influence, particularly during summer when water temperatures are generallywarmer.Lower Chesapeake Bay Clymene dolphin occurrence - The Clymene dolphin is considered extralimitalin the Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area Clymene dolphin density - The density estimates for training areas whereexplosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1.Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a). Density is not expected to be3-168 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsuniform across the warning areas. Clymene dolphins will likely be concentrated in deeper waters seawardof the shelf break and/or near the Gulf Stream based on habitat preferences.Common DolphinThere are two types of common dolphin, only the short-beaked common dolphin is expected to occur inthe VACAPES Study Area. The short-beaked common dolphin is a moderately robust dolphin, with amoderate-length beak, and a tall, slightly falcate dorsal fin. Length ranges up to about 2.3 m (females) and2.6 m (males); however, there is substantial geographic variation (Jefferson et al., 1993). Commondolphins feed on a wide variety of epipelagic and mesopelagic schooling fish and squids, such as thelong-finned squid, Atlantic mackerel, herring, whiting, pilchard, and anchovy (Waring et al., 1990;Overholtz and Waring, 1991).Status and management -- The best estimate of abundance for the Western North Atlantic Delphinus spp.stock is 120,743 individuals (Waring et al. 2008). There is no information available for western NorthAtlantic common dolphin stock structure (Waring et al. 2008). The common dolphin is under thejurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - Common dolphins occupy a variety of habitats, including shallow continental shelf waters,waters along the continental shelf break, and continental slope and oceanic areas. Along the U.S. Atlanticcoast, common dolphins typically occur in temperate waters on the continental shelf between the 100 and200-m isobaths, in association with the Gulf Stream, along the edge of the continental shelf (CETAP,1982; Selzer and Payne, 1988; Waring and Palka, 2002).Acoustics and Hearing— Recorded Delphinus spp. vocalizations include whistles, chirps, barks, andclicks (Ketten, 1998). Clicks range from 0.2 to 150 kHz with dominant frequencies between 23 and 67kHz and estimated source levels of 170 dB re 1 Pa. Chirps and barks typically have a frequency rangefrom less than 0.5 to 14 kHz, and whistles range in frequency from 2 to 18 kHz (Fish and Turl, 1976;Thomson and Richardson, 1995; Ketten, 1998; Oswald et al., 2003). Maximum source levels areapproximately 180 dB 1 Pa-m (Fish and Turl, 1976). This species’ hearing range extends from 10 to 150kHz; sensitivity is greatest from 60 to 70 kHz (Popov and Klishin, 1998).Distribution— Common dolphins occur from southern Norway to West Africa in the eastern Atlantic andfrom Newfoundland to Florida in the western Atlantic (Perrin, 2002a), although this species morecommonly occurs in temperate, cooler waters in the northwestern Atlantic (Waring and Palka, 2002). Thisspecies is abundant within a broad band paralleling the continental slope from 35ºN to the northeast peakof Georges Bank (Selzer and Payne, 1988). Short-beaked common dolphin sightings are known to occuralong the continental shelf break south of 40ºN in spring and north of this latitude in fall. Throughout allseasons common dolphins occur along the shelf edge in a wide band, with occurrence extending onto theshelf (CETAP, 1982). During fall, this species is particularly abundant along the northern edge ofGeorges Bank (CETAP, 1982). The common dolphin is less abundant south of Cape Hatteras (Waring etal., 2007).Calving peaks differ between stocks, and have been reported in spring and autumn as well as in springand summer (Jefferson et al. 1993); however, locations of breeding areas are unknown.VACAPES OPAREA common dolphin occurrence - Common dolphins may primarily occur in a broadband along the shelf break from Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia year-round (CETAP 1982). This species isless common south of Cape Hatteras (Waring et al. 2007). As noted in CETAP (1982), the commondolphin may occur shoreward, and they are found over the shelf throughout the year.Lower Chesapeake Bay common dolphin occurrence - Records for the Chesapeake region are all fromthe lower part of lower Chesapeake Bay from December through June, including a pound net capture.3-169 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsWestgate (2005) lists common dolphin records for the North Atlantic, including strandings and biopsyefforts, also for approximately the same temporal pattern. Stranding records of common dolphins haveincreased dramatically in the last 10 yrs; this is now one of most common offshore species in theChesapeake region (Barco, 2007). Groups of common dolphin have been reported on a few occasions atthe Bay mouth (Barco, 2007).VACAPES Study Area common dolphin density - The density estimates for training areas whereexplosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1.Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a).False Killer WhaleThe false killer whale has a long slender body, a rounded overhanging forehead, and little or no beak(Jefferson et al., 1993). Individuals reach maximum lengths of 6.1 m (Jefferson et al., 1993). The flippershave a characteristic hump on the S-shaped leading edge—this is perhaps the best characteristic fordistinguishing this species from the other “blackfish” (an informal grouping that is often taken to includepygmy killer, melon-headed, and pilot whales; Jefferson et al., 1993). Deepwater cephalopods and fishare their primary prey (Odell and McClune, 1999), but large pelagic species, such as dorado, have beentaken. False killer whales are known to attack marine mammals such as other delphinids, (Perryman andFoster, 1980; Stacey and Baird, 1991), sperm whales (Palacios and Mate, 1996), and baleen whales(Hoyt, 1983; Jefferson, 2006).Status and management - There are no abundance estimates available for this species in the westernNorth Atlantic (Waring et al. 2008). The false killer whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - False killer whales are primarily offshore animals, although they do come close to shore,particularly around oceanic islands (Baird 2002). Inshore movements are occasionally associated withprey movement and the movement of warm ocean currents toward the shore (Stacey et al. 1994).Acoustics and Hearing - Dominant frequencies of false killer whale whistles are from 4 to 9.5 kHz, andthose of their echolocation clicks are from either 20 to 60 kHz or 100 to 130 kHz depending on ambientnoise and target distance (Thomson and Richardson, 1995). Click source levels typically range from 200to 228 dB re 1 Pa-m (Ketten, 1998). Recently, false killer whales recorded in the Indian Ocean producedecholocation clicks with dominant frequencies of about 40 kHz and estimated source levels of 201-225dB re 1 Pa-m peak-to-peak (Madsen et al., 2004b). False killer whales can hear frequencies rangingfrom approximately 2 to 115 kHz with best hearing sensitivity ranging from 16 to 64 kHz (Thomas et al.,1988). Additional behavioral audiograms of false killer whales support a range of best hearing sensitivitybetween 16 and 24 kHz, with peak sensitivity at 20 kHz (Yuen et al., 2005). The same study alsomeasured audiograms using the ABR technique, which came to similar results, with a range of besthearing sensitivity between 16 and 22.5 kHz, peaking at 22.5 kHz (Yuen et al., 2005). Behavioralaudiograms in this study consistently resulted in lower thresholds than those obtained by ABR.Distribution - False killer whales are found in tropical and temperate waters, generally between 50°S and50°N latitude with a few records north of 50°N in the Pacific and the Atlantic (Baird et al., 1989; Odelland McClune, 1999).Seasonality and location of false killer whale breeding are unknown.VACAPES OPAREA false killer whale occurrence - False killer whales occur in offshore, warm watersworldwide (Baird 2002). The warm waters of the Gulf Stream likely influence occurrence in the southernVACAPES OPAREA. A small number of sightings and strandings are recorded near the Study Area; the3-170 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalssightings reflect the preference of this species for offshore waters (DoN, 2008a). False killer whales mayoccur seaward of the shelf break throughout the OPAREA year-round.Lower Chesapeake Bay false killer whale occurrence - The false killer whale is considered extralimitalto the Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area false killer whale density - There were not sufficient data available to estimate adensity for the Study Area. Nor is there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stock assessment report(DoN, 2007a).Fraser's DolphinThe Fraser’s dolphin reaches a maximum length of 2.7 m and is generally more robust than other smalldelphinids (Jefferson et al., 1993). They feed on mesopelagic fish, squid, and shrimp (Jefferson andLeatherwood, 1994; Perrin et al., 1994a).Status and management-- No abundance estimate of Fraser’s dolphins in the western North Atlantic isavailable (Waring et al. 2008). Fraser’s dolphins are under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - The Fraser’s dolphin is an oceanic species, except in places where deepwater approaches acoastline (Dolar 2002).Acoustics and Hearing - Fraser's dolphin whistles have been recorded having a frequency range of 7.6 to13.4 kHz in the Gulf of Mexico (duration less than 0.5 sec) (Leatherwood et al., 1993). There are noempirical hearing data hearing data available for this species.Distribution - Fraser’s dolphins are found in subtropical and tropical waters around the world, typicallybetween 30ºN and 30ºS (Jefferson et al., 1993). Few records are available from the Atlantic Ocean(Leatherwood et al., 1993; Watkins et al., 1994; Bolaños and Villarroel-Marin, 2003).Location of Fraser’s dolphin breeding is unknown, and available data do not support calving seasonality.VACAPES OPAREA Fraser’s dolphin occurrence - Only one sighting is documented in the VACAPESStudy Area; this sighting was recorded in deep waters (>3,000 m in depth) offshore of Cape Hatteras(NMFS-SEFSC 1999). Fraser’s dolphins may occur in the OPAREA in waters seaward of the continentalshelf, and distribution is assumed to be similar year-round.Lower Chesapeake Bay Fraser’s dolphin occurrence - The Fraser’s dolphin is considered extralimital inthe lower Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area Fraser’s dolphin density - There were not sufficient data available to estimate adensity for the Study Area. Nor is there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stock assessment report(DoN, 2007a).Harbor PorpoiseHarbor porpoises are the smallest cetaceans in the North Atlantic with a maximum length of 2.0 m(Jefferson et al., 1993). They feed on a variety of small, schooling clupeoid (herring-like) and gadid (codlike)fish usually less than 30cm in length (Read, 1999).Status and management - There are four proposed harbor porpoise populations in the western NorthAtlantic: Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, and Greenland stocks(Gaskin, 1992) with additional studies supporting this hypothesis (Wang et.al., 1996; Rosel et.al., 1999).Abundance estimates given in the SAR are based on the four population structure. The best estimate ofabundance for the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy stock is 89,054 individuals (Waring et al., 2008). Theharbor porpoise is under the jurisdiction of NMFS.3-171 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsHabitat - Harbor porpoises appear restricted to relatively cool waters where prey aggregations areconcentrated (Watts and Gaskin, 1985). Harbor porpoises are seldom found in waters warmer than 17ºC(Read, 1999) and closely mirror the movements of their primary prey, Atlantic herring (Gaskin, 1992).Harbor porpoises are generally scarce in areas without significant coastal fronts or topographicallygenerated upwellings (Gaskin, 1992; Skov et al., 2003). Harbor porpoises occur most frequently inshallow and shelf waters (Jefferson et. al., 2008; Read, 1999). However, pelagic drift net bycatches andmovements of a satellite-tracked individual, which swam offshore into water over 1,800 m deep, indicatea potential offshore distribution (Read et al., 1996; Westgate et al., 1998).Acoustics and Hearing - Harbor porpoise vocalizations include clicks and pulses (Ketten, 1998), as wellas whistle-like signals (Verboom and Kastelein, 1995). The dominant frequency range is 110 to 150 kHz,with source levels between 135 and 205 dB re 1 Pa-m (Ketten, 1998) (Villadsgaard, 2007). Echolocationsignals include one or two low-frequency components in the 1.4 to 2.5 kHz range (Verboom andKastelein, 1995).A behavioral audiogram of a harbor porpoise indicated the range of best sensitivity is 8 to 32 kHz atlevels between 45 and 50 dB re 1 Pa-m (Andersen, 1970); however, auditory-evoked potential studiesshowed a much higher frequency of approximately 125 to 130 kHz (Bibikov, 1992). The auditory-evokedpotential method suggests that the harbor porpoise actually has two frequency ranges of best sensitivity.More recent psycho-acoustic studies found the range of best hearing to be 16 to 140 kHz, with a reducedsensitivity around 64 kHz (Kastelein et al., 2002a). Maximum sensitivity occurs between 100 and 140kHz (Kastelein et al., 2002a).Distribution - Harbor porpoises occur in subpolar to cool-temperate waters in the North Atlantic andPacific (Read, 1999). Off the northeastern U.S., harbor porpoise distribution is strongly concentrated inthe Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank region, with more scattered occurrences to the mid-Atlantic (CETAP,1982; Northridge, 1996). Stranding data indicate that the southern limit is northern Florida (Polacheck,1995; Read, 1999).From January through March, harbor porpoises can be found in moderate densities in waters off NewJersey to North Carolina (Waring et. al. 2007). Densities of this species are lower in waters off New Yorkto New Brunswick, Canada during this same time (Waring et. al., 2007). A satellite tagged harborporpoise was rehabilitated and released off the coast of Maine and followed the continental slope south tonear Cape Hatteras between January and March of 2004 (WhaleNet, 2004). During this time of year,significant numbers of porpoises occur along the mid-Atlantic shore from New Jersey to North Carolina,where they are subject to incidental mortality in a variety of coastal gillnet fisheries (Cox et al., 1998;Waring et al., 2007). Harbor porpoises are not tied to shallow, nearshore waters during winter, asevidenced by a harbor porpoise caught in a pelagic drift net off North Carolina (Read et al., 1996).In the Gulf of Maine, calves are born in late spring (Read, 1990; Read and Hohn 1995). Generally, mostcalves are born April through August (Jefferson et al. 2008). The location of breeding areas is unknown.VACAPES OPAREA harbor porpoise occurrence - The harbor porpoise primarily occurs on thecontinental shelf in cool temperate to subpolar waters (Read 1999) that are at higher latitudes than theVACAPES Study Area. Occurrences of harbor porpoises in the mid-Atlantic are scattered (CETAP 1982;Northridge 1996). Based on distribution records and known habitat preferences, harbor porpoises mayoccur throughout the Study Area during most of the year (DoN, 2008a). During summer, harborporpoises are concentrated in the northern Gulf of Maine and lower Bay of Fundy region and are notexpected to occur as far south as the Study Area.Lower Chesapeake Bay harbor porpoise occurrence - The harbor porpoise occurs regularly inChesapeake Bay (Prescott and Fiorelli 1980; Polacheck et al. 1995), including the upper reaches. The3-172 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsvast majority of harbor porpoise strandings in Virginia waters (including Chesapeake Bay) are betweenJanuary and May, with a peak between March and May (Polacheck et al. 1995; Cox et al. 1998; Morganet al. 2002; Swingle et al. 2007); this is when water temperatures are coldest. There are documentedoccurrences still through mid-July in the Bay, including a mid-July 1984 sighting near the mouth of theBay and an early July 1996 stranding on the shore of the James River. Harbor porpoises may occur yearroundin the lower Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area harbor porpoise density - There were not sufficient data available to estimate adensity for the Study Area. Nor is there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stock assessment report(DoN, 2007a).Killer WhaleKiller whales are probably the most instantly recognizable of all the cetaceans. The black-and-white colorpattern of the killer whale is striking, as is the tall, erect dorsal fin of the adult male (1.0 to 1.8 m inheight). This is the largest member of the dolphin family. Females may reach 7.7 m in length and males9.0 m (Dahlheim and Heyning, 1999). Killer whales feed on fish, cephalopods, seabirds, sea turtles, andother marine mammals (Katona et al., 1988; Jefferson et al., 1991; Jefferson et.al. 2008).Status and management - There are no estimates of abundance for killer whales in the western NorthAtlantic (Waring et al. 2008). Most cetacean taxonomists agree that multiple killer whale species orsubspecies occur worldwide (Krahn et al. 2004; Waples and Clapham 2004). However, at this time,further information is not available, particularly for the western North Atlantic. The killer whale is underthe jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - Killer whales have the most ubiquitous distribution of any species of marine mammal, and theyhave been observed in virtually every marine habitat from the tropics to the poles and from shallow,inshore waters (and even rivers) to deep, oceanic regions (Dahlheim and Heyning, 1999). In coastal areas,killer whales often enter shallow bays, estuaries, and river mouths (Leatherwood et al., 1976). Based on areview of historical sighting and whaling records, killer whales in the northwestern Atlantic are foundmost often along the shelf break and farther offshore (Katona et al., 1988; Mitchell and Reeves, 1988).Killer whales in the Hatteras-Fundy region probably respond to the migration and seasonal distributionpatterns of prey species, such as bluefin tuna, herring, and squids (Katona et al., 1988; Gormley, 1990).Acoustics and Hearing - Killer whales produce a wide variety of clicks and whistles, but most of thisspecies’ social sounds are pulsed, with frequencies ranging from 0.5 to 25 kHz (dominant frequencyrange: 1 to 6 kHz) (Thomson and Richardson, 1995). Echolocation clicks recorded for Canadian killerwhales foraging on salmon have source levels ranging from 195 to 224 dB re: 1 Pa-m peak-to-peak, acenter frequency ranging from 45 to 80 kHz, and durations of 80 to 120 s (Au et al., 2004). Echolocationclicks from Norwegian killer whales were considerably lower than the previously mentioned study andranged from 173 to 202 re: 1 Pa-m peak-to-peak. The clicks had a center frequency ranging from 22 to49 kHz and durations of 31 to 203 s (Simon et al., 2007). Source levels associated with social soundshave been calculated to range from 131 to 168 dB re 1 Pa-m and have been demonstrated to vary withvocalization type (e.g., whistles: average source level of 140.2 dB re 1 Pa-m, variable calls: averagesource level of 146.6 dB re 1 Pa-m, and stereotyped calls: average source level 152.6 dB re 1 Pa-m)(Veirs, 2004). Additionally, killer whales modify their vocalizations depending on social context orecological function (i.e., short-range vocalizations [less than 10 km [5 nm] range] are typically associatedwith social and resting behaviors and long-range vocalizations [10 to 16 km [5 to 9 nm) range] areassociated with travel and foraging) (Miller, 2006). Likewise, echolocation clicks are adapted to the typeof fish prey (Simon et al., 2007).3-173 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsAcoustic studies of resident killer whales in British Columbia have found that they possess dialects,which are highly stereotyped, repetitive discrete calls that are group-specific and are shared by all groupmembers (Ford, 2002). These dialects likely are used to maintain group identity and cohesion and mayserve as indicators of relatedness that help in the avoidance of inbreeding between closely related whales(Ford, 1991 and 2002). Dialects have been documented in northern Norway (Ford, 2002) and southernAlaskan killer whales populations (Yurk et al., 2002) and are likely occur in other regions as well.Both behavioral and ABR techniques indicate killer whales can hear a frequency range of 1 to 100 kHzand are most sensitive at 20 kHz, which is one of the lowest maximum-sensitivity frequency knownamong toothed whales (Szymanski et al., 1999).Distribution - Killer whales are found throughout all oceans and contiguous seas, from equatorial regionsto polar pack ice zones of both hemispheres. In the western North Atlantic, killer whales are known fromthe polar pack ice, off of Baffin Island, and in Labrador Sound southward to Florida, the Bahamas, andthe Gulf of Mexico (Dahlheim and Heyning, 1999), where they have been sighted year-round (Jeffersonand Schiro, 1997; O’Sullivan and Mullin, 1997; Würsig et al., 2000). A year-round killer whalepopulation in the western North Atlantic may exist south of around 35°N (Katona et al., 1988).In the Atlantic, calving takes place in late fall to mid-winter (Jefferson et al. 2008); however, location ofkiller whale breeding in the North Atlantic is unknown.VACAPES OPAREA killer whale occurrence - Several killer whale sightings are recorded in bothshallow and deep waters of the OPAREA and vicinity (DoN, 2008a). Strandings are also reported alongthe Outer Banks (DoN, 2008a). There is photo-identification evidence that a small population movesthrough parts of the Hatteras-Fundy region on a seasonal basis (Katona et al. 1988). Killer whales mayoccur seaward of the shoreline year-round based on available sighting data and the diverse habitatpreferences of this species.Lower Chesapeake Bay killer whale occurrence - The killer whale is considered extralimital in theChesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area killer whale density - There were not sufficient data available to estimate adensity for the Study Area. Nor is there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stock assessment report(DoN, 2007a).Melon-headed WhaleMelon-headed whales at sea closely resemble pygmy killer whales; both species have a blunt head withlittle or no beak. Melon-headed whales have pointed (versus rounded) flippers and a more triangular headshape than pygmy killer whales (Jefferson et al., 1993). Melon-headed whales reach a maximum length of2.75 m (Jefferson et al., 1993). Melon-headed whales prey on squids, pelagic fish, and occasionallycrustaceans. Most fish and squid prey are mesopelagic in waters up to 1,500 m deep, suggesting thatfeeding takes place deep in the water column (Jefferson and Barros, 1997).Status and management - There are no abundance estimates for melon-headed whales in the westernNorth Atlantic (Waring et al., 2008). The melon-headed whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - Melon-headed whales are most often found in offshore waters. Sightings off Cape Hatteras,North Carolina are reported in waters greater than 2,500 m (Waring et al., 2007) , and most in the Gulf ofMexico have been well beyond the edge of the continental shelf break (Mullin et al., 1994; Davis andFargion, 1996b; Davis et al., 2000) and out over the abyssal plain (Waring et al., 2004). Nearshoresightings are generally from areas where deep, oceanic waters approach the coast (Perryman, 2002).Acoustics and Hearing - The only published acoustic information for melon-headed whales is from thesoutheastern Caribbean (Watkins et al., 1997). Sounds recorded included whistles and click sequences.3-174 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsRecorded whistles have dominant frequencies between 8 and 12 kHz; higher level whistles wereestimated at no more than 155 dB re 1 Pa-m (Watkins et al., 1997). Clicks had dominant frequencies of20 to 40 kHz; higher-level click bursts were judged to be about 165 dB re 1 Pa-m (Watkins et al., 1997).No empirical data on hearing ability for this species are available.Distribution - Melon-headed whales occur worldwide in subtropical and tropical waters. There are veryfew records for melon-headed whales in the North Atlantic (Ross and Leatherwood, 1994; Jefferson andBarros, 1997). Maryland is thought to represent the extreme of the northern distribution for this species inthe northwest Atlantic (Perryman et al., 1994; Jefferson and Barros, 1997).Seasonality and location of melon-headed whale breeding are unknown.VACAPES OPAREA melon-headed whale occurrence - The melon-headed whale is an oceanic species;it may occur seaward of the shelf break year-round throughout the Study Area. Based on warm waterpreferences, melon-headed whale occurrence in the Study Area during winter is likely influenced by theGulf Stream. Two sightings of melon-headed whales are recorded in deep (>2,500 m) offshore watersalong the path of the Gulf Stream in the southern VACAPES OPAREA (DoN, 2008a).Lower Chesapeake Bay melon-headed whale occurrence - The melon-headed whale is consideredextralimital in the Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area melon-headed whale density - There were not sufficient data available toestimate a density for the Study Area. Nor is there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stock assessmentreport (DoN, 2007a).Minke WhaleMinke whales are small rorquals; adults reach lengths of just over 9 m (Jefferson et al., 1993). In thewestern North Atlantic, minke whales feed primarily on schooling fish, such as sand lance, capelin,herring, and mackerel (Kenney et al., 1985), as well as copepods and krill (Horwood, 1990).Status and management - There are four recognized populations in the North Atlantic Ocean: CanadianEast Coast, West Greenland, Central North Atlantic, and Northeastern North Atlantic (Donovan 1991).Minke whales off the eastern U.S. are considered to be part of the Canadian East Coast stock whichinhabits the area from the western half of the Davis Strait to 45º W and south to the Gulf of Mexico(Waring et al. 2008). The best estimate of abundance for the Canadian East Coast stock is 3,312individuals (Waring et al. 2008). The minke whale is under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - Off eastern North America, minke whales generally remain in waters over the continental shelf,including inshore bays and estuaries (Mitchell and Kozicki, 1975; Murphy, 1995; Mignucci-Giannoni,1998). However, based on whaling catches and global surveys, there is an offshore component to minkewhale distribution (Slijper et al., 1964; Horwood, 1990; Mitchell, 1991).Acoustics and Hearing - Recordings of minke whale sounds indicate the production of both high- andlow-frequency sounds (range of 0.06 to 20 kHz) (Beamish and Mitchell, 1973; Winn and Perkins, 1976;Thomson and Richardson, 1995; Mellinger et al., 2000). Minke whale sounds have a dominant frequencyrange of 0.06 to greater than 12 kHz, depending on sound type (Thomson and Richardson, 1995; Edds-Walton, 2000). “Boings” are produced by minke whales and are suggested to be a breeding display,consisting of a brief pulse at 1.3 kHz followed by an amplitude-modulated call with greatest energy at 1.4kHz, with slight frequency modulation over a duration of 2.5 sec (Rankin and Barlow, 2005). While noempirical data on hearing ability for this species are available, Ketten (1997) hypothesized that mysticetesare most adapted to hear low to infrasonic frequencies.Distribution - Minke whales are distributed in polar, temperate, and tropical waters (Jefferson et al.,1993); they are less common in the tropics than in cooler waters. This species is more abundant in New3-175 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsEngland waters than in the mid-Atlantic (Hamazaki, 2002; Waring et al., 2006). The southernmostsighting in recent NMFS shipboard surveys was of one individual offshore of the mouth of ChesapeakeBay, in waters with a bottom depth of 3,475 m (Mullin and Fulling, 2003). Minke whales off the U.S.Atlantic coast apparently migrate offshore and southward in winter (Mitchell, 1991). Minke whales areknown to occur during the winter months (November through March) in the western North Atlantic fromBermuda to the West Indies (Winn and Perkins, 1976; Mitchell, 1991; Mellinger et al., 2000).Mating is thought to occur in October to March but has never been observed (Stewart and Leatherwood1985); however, location of specific breeding grounds is unknown although it is thought to be in areas oflow latitude (Jefferson et al. 2008).VACAPES OPAREA minke whale occurrence - Minke whales are assumed to have a similar life historyas the other rorquals, with seasonal offshore/inshore movements and a population shift north into summerfeeding grounds. Minke whales generally occupy the continental shelf and are widely scattered in themid-Atlantic region (CETAP 1982). There is a more common occurrence farther north of the Study Area.The dynamics of the Gulf Stream in the Cape Hatteras region probably play a role in the zoogeography ofminke whales throughout much of the year.Most sightings in the VACAPES Study Area and vicinity are recorded over the continental shelf; few arescattered in slope waters just beyond the shelf break (DoN, 2008a). Minke whales may occur in shelf anddeep waters north of Cape Hatteras during winter. South of Cape Hatteras, minke whales may occur justinshore of the shelf break and seaward of the shelf break in the Study Area. The change in occurrencepatterns just south of Cape Hatteras takes into consideration the steep bathymetric gradient. Minke whalesmay occur in shelf and offshore waters of the OPAREA during spring and fall. During summer, minkewhales may occur in shelf and offshore waters of the OPAREA, but are more likely to be at higherlatitudes on their feeding grounds.Lower Chesapeake Bay minke whale occurrence - The minke whale is considered extralimital to theChesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area minke whale density - The density estimates for training areas where explosionsand/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1. Methods andresults are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a).Pantropical Spotted DolphinThe pantropical spotted dolphin is a rather slender dolphin. Adults may reach 2.6 m in length (Jefferson etal., 1993). Pantropical spotted dolphins are born spotless and develop spots as they age although thedegree of spotting varies geographically (Perrin and Hohn, 1994). North and offshore of Cape Hatteras,adults may bear only a few small, dark, ventral spots whereas individuals over the continental shelfbecome so heavily spotted that they appear nearly white (Perrin and Hohn, 1994. Pantropical spotteddolphins prey on epipelagic fish, squids, and crustaceans (Perrin and Hohn, 1994; Robertson and Chivers,1997; Wang et al., 2003).Status and management - The best estimate of abundance of the western North Atlantic stock ofpantropical spotted dolphins is 4,439 individuals (Waring et al. 2008). There is no information on stockdifferentiation for pantropical spotted dolphins in the U.S. Atlantic (Waring et al. 2008). The pantropicalspotted dolphin is under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - Pantropical spotted dolphins tend to associate with bathymetric relief and oceanographicinterfaces. Pantropical spotted dolphins may rarely be sighted in shallower waters (e.g., Peddemors, 1999;Gannier, 2002; Mignucci-Giannoni et al., 2003; Waring et al., 2007). Along the northeastern U.S.,Waring, et al., (1992) found that Stenella spp. were distributed along the Gulf Stream’s northern wall.3-176 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsStenella sightings also occurred within the Gulf Stream, which is consistent with the oceanic distributionof this genus and its preference for warm water (Waring et al., 1992; Mullin and Fulling, 2003).Acoustics and Hearing - Pantropical spotted dolphin whistles have a frequency range of 3.1 to 21.4 kHz(Thomson and Richardson, 1995). Clicks typically have two frequency peaks (bimodal) at 40 to 60 kHzand 120 to 140 kHz with estimated source levels up to 220 dB re:1 Pa peak-to-peak (Schotten et al.,2004). No direct measures of hearing ability are available for pantropical spotted dolphins, but earanatomy has been studied and indicates that this species should be adapted to hear the lower range ofultrasonic frequencies (less than 100 kHz) (Ketten, 1992 and 1997).Distribution - Pantropical spotted dolphins occur in subtropical and tropical waters worldwide (Perrin andHohn 1994).In the eastern tropical Pacific, where this species has been best studied, there are two (possibly three)calving peaks: one in spring, (one possibly in summer), and one in fall (Perrin and Hohn 1994). However,in the western Atlantic breeding times and locations are largely unknown.VACAPES OPAREA pantropical spotted dolphin occurrence - Pantropical spotted dolphins have beensighted along the Florida shelf and slope waters and offshore in Gulf Stream waters southeast of CapeHatteras (Waring et al. 2007). In the Atlantic, this species is considered broadly sympatric with Atlanticspotted dolphins (Perrin and Hohn 1994). The offshore form of the Atlantic spotted dolphin and thepantropical spotted dolphin can be difficult to differentiate at sea. Based on sighting data and knownhabitat preferences, pantropical spotted dolphins may occur seaward of the shelf break throughout theOPAREA year-round.Lower Chesapeake Bay pantropical spotted dolphin occurrence - The pantropical spotted dolphin isconsidered extralimital in the Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area pantropical spotted dolphin density - The density estimates for training areaswhere explosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1. Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a). Density will likely not beuniform across the Study Area. Based on habitat preferences, pantropical dolphins are anticipated to befound seaward of the shelf break. Given estimates may reflect lower survey efforts in offshore waters orthe difficulty in distinguishing pantropical spotted dolphins from the offshore form of the Atlantic spotteddolphin.Pilot WhalesPilot whales are among the largest dolphins, with long-finned pilot whales potentially reaching 5.7 m(females) and 6.7 m (males) in length. Short-finned pilot whales may reach 5.5 m (females) and 6.1 m(males) in length (Jefferson et al., 1993). The flippers of long-finned pilot whales are extremely long,sickle shaped, and slender, with pointed tips, and an angled leading edge that forms an “elbow.” Longfinnedpilot whale flippers range from 18 to 27 percent of length. Short-finned pilot whales have flippersthat are somewhat shorter than long-finned pilot whale at 16 to 22 percent of the total body length(Jefferson et al., 1993). Both pilot whale species feed primarily on squids but also take fish (Bernard andReilly, 1999).Status and management - The best estimate of pilot whale abundance (combined short-finned and longfinned)in the western North Atlantic is 31,139 individuals (Waring et al. 2008). Pilot whales are underthe jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - Pilot whales occur along the continental shelf break, in continental slope waters, and in areas ofhigh-topographic relief (Olson and Reilly, 2002). While typically distributed along the continental shelfbreak, they are also commonly sighted on the continental shelf and inshore of the 100-m isobath (CETAP,3-177 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammals1982; Payne and Heinemann, 1993). Sightings of pilot whales also frequently occur seaward of the 2,000-m isobath north of Cape Hatteras (CETAP, 1982; Payne and Heinemann, 1993).Waring, et al. (1992) sighted pilot whales principally along the northern wall of the Gulf Stream andalong the shelf break at thermal fronts. A few of these sightings were also made in the mid-portion of theGulf Stream near Cape Hatteras (Abend and Smith, 1999).Pilot whales occur close to shore at oceanic islands where the shelf is narrow and deeper waters arenearby (Mignucci-Giannoni, 1998; Gannier, 2000; Anderson, 2005). Long-finned pilot whale sightingsextend south to near Cape Hatteras through the VACAPES OPAREA (Abend and Smith, 1999) along thecontinental slope.Acoustics and Hearing - Pilot whale sound production includes whistles and echolocation clicks. Shortfinnedpilot whale whistles and clicks have a dominant frequency range of 2 to 14 kHz and 30 to 60 kHz,respectively, at an estimated source level of 180 dB re:1 Pa-m (Fish and Turl, 1976; Ketten, 1998).Rendell and Gordan (1999) recorded vocalizations from a group of approximately 50 long-finned pilotwhales in the Ligurian Sea in conjunction with the presence of military sonar signals, which facilitated anexamination of this species short-term response to external sound sources. Whistle production wasexamined in relation to sonar pulses: frequency ranged from 4.1 to 8.7 kHz with a mean duration of .93 s,and showed varying contour patterns spectrographically (Rendell and Gordon, 1999). Preliminary resultsfrom these data suggest that certain whistles were associated with sonar signals; however, the functionalmeaning of how these signals might be correlated to external sonar is unclear.Long-finned pilot whaleshave been shown to modify their whistle characteristics in the presence of sonar transmissions in theLigurian sea (Rendell and Gorden, 1999). There are no hearing data available for either pilot whalespecies. However, the most sensitive hearing range for odontocetes generally includes high frequencies(Ketten, 1997).Distribution - Long-finned pilot whales are distributed in subpolar to temperate North Atlantic watersoffshore and in some coastal waters. The short-finned pilot whale usually does not range north of 50°N orsouth of 40°S (Jefferson et al., 1993); short-finned pilot whales have stranded as far north as RhodeIsland. Strandings of long-finned pilot whales have been recorded as far south as South Carolina (Waringet al., 2007). Short-finned pilot whales are common south of Cape Hatteras (Caldwell and Golley, 1965;Irvine et al., 1979). Long-finned pilot whales appear to concentrate during winter along the continentalshelf break primarily between Cape Hatteras and Georges Bank (Waring et al., 1990). The apparentranges of the two pilot whale species overlap in shelf/shelf-edge and slope waters of the northeastern U.S.between 35°N and 38° to 39°N (New Jersey to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina) (Payne and Heinemann,1993). However, incidents of strandings of short-finned pilot whales as far north as Block Island, RI andNova Scotia indicate that area of overlap may be larger than previously thought (Waring et. al. 2007).Pilot whales concentrate along the continental shelf break from during late winter and early spring northof Cape Hatteras (CETAP, 1982; Payne and Heinemann, 1993). This corresponds to a general movementnorthward and onto the continental shelf from continental slope waters (Payne and Heinemann, 1993).Short-finned pilot whales seem to move from offshore to continental shelf break waters and thennorthward to approximately 39ºN, east of Delaware Bay during summer (Payne and Heinemann, 1993).Sightings coalesce into a patchy continuum and, by December, most short-finned pilot whales occur inthe mid-Atlantic slope waters east of Cape Hatteras (Payne and Heinemann, 1993). Although pilot whalesappear to be seasonally migratory, sightings indicate common year-round occurrence in some continentalshelf areas, such as the southern margin of Georges Bank (CETAP, 1982; Abend and Smith, 1999).The calving peak for long-finned pilot whales is from July to September in the northern hemisphere(Bernard and Reilly 1999). Short-finned pilot whale calving peaks in the northern hemisphere are in the3-178 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsfall and winter for the majority of populations (Jefferson et al. 2008). Locations of breeding areas areunknown.VACAPES OPAREA pilot whale occurrence - The VACAPES OPAREA is located in a region of rangeoverlap between both pilot whale species (Payne and Heinemann 1993). As a deep-water species, pilotwhales may occur seaward of the shelf break throughout the OPAREA year-round. They may also occurbetween the shore and shelf break (CETAP 1982; Kenney 1990) which is supported by opportunisticsightings and bycatch records inshore of the shelf break in the OPAREA (DoN, 2008a). Concentratedareas of occurrence are likely influenced by high levels of productivity generated by warm-core ringsfrom the Gulf Stream as well as the steep sloping bottom topography of the area (DoN, 2008a).Lower Chesapeake Bay pilot whale occurrence - Pilot whales are considered extralimital in theChesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area pilot whale density - The density estimates for training areas where explosionsand/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1. Methods andresults are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a). Density is not expected to be uniform across thewarning area. Pilot whales will likely be concentrated in waters near and seaward of the shelf breakbased on habitat preferences; however, they may also occur in shelf waters in smaller numbers.Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm WhalesDwarf and pygmy sperm whales are difficult for the inexperienced observer to distinguish from oneanother at sea, and sightings of either species are often categorized as Kogia spp. The difficulty inidentifying pygmy and dwarf sperm whales is exacerbated by their avoidance reaction toward ships andchange in behavior toward approaching survey aircraft (Würsig et al., 1998). Kogia spp. feed oncephalopods and, less often, on deep-sea fish and shrimp (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1989; McAlpine et al.,1997; Willis and Baird, 1998; Santos et al., 2006).Status and management - There is currently no information to differentiate Atlantic stock(s) (Waring etal. 2008). The best estimate of abundance for both species combined in the western North Atlantic is 395individuals (Waring et al. 2008). Species-level abundance estimates cannot be calculated due touncertainty of species identification at sea (Waring et al. 2008). Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are underthe jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - Kogia spp. occurs in waters along the continental shelf break and over the continental slope(e.g., Baumgartner et al., 2001; McAlpine, 2002). Data from the Gulf of Mexico suggest that Kogia spp.may associate with frontal regions along the continental shelf break and upper continental slope, wheretheir primary prey of squid may concentrate due to higher epipelagic zooplankton biomass (Baumgartneret al., 2001).Acoustics and Hearing- There is little published information on sounds produced by Kogia spp, althoughthey are categorized as non-whistling smaller toothed whales. Recently, free-ranging dwarf sperm whalesoff La Martinique (Lesser Antilles) were recorded producing clicks at 13 to 33 kHz with durations of 0.3to 0.5 sec (Jérémie et al., 2006). The only sound recordings for the pygmy sperm whale are from twostranded individuals. The only sound recordings for the pygmy sperm whale are from two strandedindividuals. A stranded individual being prepared for release in the western North Atlantic emitted clicksof narrow band pulses with a mean duration of 119 sec, interclick intervals between 40 and 70 msec,centroid frequency of 129 kHz (centroid is the frequency which divides the energy in the click into twoequal portions), peak frequency of 130 kHz, and apparent peak-peak source level up to 175 dB re 1 Pam(Madsen et al., 2005). Another individual found stranded in Monterey Bay produced echolocationclicks ranging from 60 to 200 kHz, with a dominant frequency of 120 to 130 kHz (Ridgway and Carder,2001). No information on sound production or hearing is available for the dwarf sperm whale.3-179 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsDistribution - Both Kogia species apparently have a worldwide distribution in tropical and temperatewaters (Jefferson et al., 1993). In the western Atlantic Ocean, stranding records have documented thepygmy sperm whale as far north as the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, New Brunswick and parts ofeastern Canada (Piers, 1928, Measures et al., 2004; McAlpine et. al. 1997; Baird, 1996) and as far southas Colombia and around to Brazil (in the southern Atlantic) (Carvalho, 1967; Geise and Borobia 1987;Muñoz-Hincapié et al., 1998). Pygmy sperm whales are also found in the Gulf of Mexico (Hysmith,1976; Gunter et. al. 1955; Baumgartner et al., 2001) and in the Caribbean (MacLeod and Hauser 2002).The northern range of the dwarf sperm whale is largely unknown; however, multiple stranding recordsexist on the eastern coast of the U.S. as far north as North Carolina (Hohn et al. 2006) and Virginia(Morgan et al. 2002; Potter 1979). Records of strandings and incidental captures indicate the dwarf spermwhale may range as far south as the Northern Antilles in the northern Atlantic (Muñoz-Hincapié et al.,1998); although records continue south along Brazil in the southern Atlantic (Muñoz-Hincapié et al.,1998). Dwarf sperm whales occur in the Caribbean (Caldwell et. al. 1973; Cardona-Maldonado andMignucci-Giannoni 1999) and the Gulf of Mexico (Davis et. al. 2002; Jefferson and Schiro 1997).Births have been recorded between December and March for dwarf sperm whales in South Africa(Plön, 2004); however, the breeding season and locations of specific are unknown.VACAPES OPAREA Kogia spp. occurrence - Kogia spp. generally occurs along the continental shelfbreak and over the continental slope (e.g., Baumgartner et al. 2001; McAlpine 2002). Few sightings arerecorded in the OPAREA which is likely due to incomplete survey coverage throughout most of the deepwaters of this region (especially during winter and fall) as well as their avoidance reactions toward ships(DoN, 2008a). However, strandings are recorded inshore of the OPAREA boundaries during all seasonsand support the likelihood of Kogia spp. occurrence in the OPAREA year-round (DoN, 2008a). Kogiaspp. may occur seaward of the shelf break throughout the OPAREA year-round.Lower Chesapeake Bay Kogia spp. occurrence - Kogia spp. is considered extralimital in the ChesapeakeBay region.VACAPES Study Area Kogia spp. density - The density estimates for training areas where explosionsand/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1. Methods andresults are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a). Density is not expected to be uniform across thewarning area. Kogia spp. will likely be concentrated in waters near and seaward of the shelf break basedon habitat preferences. Density estimates may reflect the lower amount of survey effort in offshore watersas well as their documented avoidance reactions to ships.Pygmy Killer WhaleThe pygmy killer whale is often confused with the melon-headed whale and less often with the false killerwhale. Flipper shape is the best distinguishing characteristic; pygmy killer whales have rounded flippertips (Jefferson et al., 1993). Pygmy killer whales reach lengths of up to 2.6 m (Jefferson et al., 1993).Pygmy killer whales eat predominantly fish and squids, and sometimes take large fish. They are known tooccasionally attack other dolphins (Perryman and Foster, 1980; Ross and Leatherwood, 1994).Status and management - There are no abundance estimates for pygmy killer whales in the westernNorth Atlantic (Waring et al. 2008). Pygmy killer whales are under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - Pygmy killer whales generally occupy offshore habitats. In the northern Gulf of Mexico, thisspecies is found primarily in deeper waters off the continental shelf (Davis and Fargion, 1996a; Davis etal., 2000) out to waters over the abyssal plain (Jefferson, 2006). Pygmy killer whales were sighted inwaters deeper than 1,500 m off Cape Hatteras (Hansen et al., 1994).3-180 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsAcoustics and Hearing - The pygmy killer whale emits short duration, broadband signals similar to alarge number of other delphinid species (Madsen et al., 2004b). Clicks produced by pygmy killer whaleshave centroid frequencies (centroid is the frequency which divides the energy in the click into two equalportions) between 70 and 85 kHz; there are bimodal peak frequencies between 45 and 117 kHz. Theestimated source levels are between 197 and 223 dB re 1 Pa-m peak-to-peak (Madsen et al., 2004b).These clicks possess characteristics of echolocation clicks (Madsen et al., 2004b). There are no empiricalhearing data available for this species.Distribution - Pygmy killer whales have a worldwide distribution in tropical and subtropical waters,generally not ranging north of 40ºN or south of 35ºS (Jefferson et al., 1993). There are few records of thisspecies in the western North Atlantic (e.g., Caldwell and Caldwell, 1971; Ross and Leatherwood, 1994).Most records from outside the tropics are associated with unseasonable intrusions of warm water intohigher latitudes (Ross and Leatherwood, 1994).Seasonality and location of pygmy killer whale breeding are unknown.VACAPES OPAREA pygmy killer whale occurrence - Only one confirmed record, a fall stranding northof Cape Hatteras, is documented for pygmy killer whales in the OPAREA and vicinity (DoN, 2008a). Thepygmy killer whale is an oceanic species which may occur seaward of the shelf break year-roundthroughout the OPAREA. Based on warm water preferences, pygmy killer whale occurrence in theOPAREA during winter is likely influenced by the Gulf Stream.Lower Chesapeake Bay pygmy killer whale occurrence - The pygmy killer whale is consideredextralimital in the Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area pygmy killer whale density - There were not sufficient data available to estimate adensity for the Study Area. Nor is there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stock assessment report(DoN, 2007a).Risso's DolphinRisso’s dolphins are moderately large, robust animals reaching at least 3.8 m in length (Jefferson et al.1993). Cephalopods are their primary prey (Clarke 1996).Status and management - The best estimate of Risso’s dolphin abundance in the western North Atlanticis 20,479 individuals (Waring et al. 2008). Risso’s dolphins are under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - Several studies have noted that Risso’s dolphins are found offshore, along the continental slope,and over the continental shelf (CETAP, 1982; Green et al., 1992; Baumgartner, 1997; Davis et al., 1998;Mignucci-Giannoni, 1998; Kruse et al., 1999). Baumgartner (1997) hypothesized that the fidelity ofRisso’s dolphins to the steeper portions of the upper continental slope in the Gulf of Mexico is most likelythe result of cephalopod prey distribution in the same area.Acoustics and Hearing - Risso’s dolphin vocalizations include broadband clicks, barks, buzzes, grunts,chirps, whistles, and combined whistle and burst-pulse sounds that range in frequency from 0.4 to 22 kHzand in duration from less than a second to several seconds (Corkeron and Van Parijs, 2001). Thecombined whistle and burst pulse sound (2 to 22 kHz, mean duration of 8 seconds) appears to be uniqueto Risso’s dolphin (Corkeron and Van Parijs, 2001). Risso’s dolphins also produce echolocation clicks(40 to 70 s duration) with a dominant frequency range of 50 to 65 kHz and estimated source levels up to222 dB re 1 Pa-m peak-to-peak (Thomson and Richardson, 1995; Philips et al., 2003; Madsen et al.,2004a). Baseline research on the hearing ability of this species was conducted by Nachtigall et al. (1995)in a natural setting (included natural background noise) using behavioral methods on one older individual.This individual could hear frequencies ranging from 1.6 to 100 kHz and was most sensitive between 8 and64 kHz. Recently, the auditory brainstem response technique has been used to measure hearing in a3-181 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsstranded infant (Nachtigall et al., 2005). This individual could hear frequencies ranging from 4 to 150kHz, with best sensitivity at 90 kHz. This study demonstrated that this species can hear higher frequenciesthan previously reported.Distribution - Risso’s dolphins are distributed worldwide in cool-temperate to tropical waters fromroughly 60ºN to 60ºS, where SSTs are generally greater than 10ºC (Kruse et al., 1999). In the westernNorth Atlantic, this species is found from Newfoundland (Jefferson et al. 2008) southward to the Gulf ofMexico (Baumgartner, 1997; Jefferson and Schiro 1997), throughout the Caribbean, and around theequator (van Bree, 1975; Ward et al. 2001).Risso’s dolphins are distributed along the continental shelf break and slope waters from Cape Hatterasnorth to Georges Bank in spring, summer, and fall (CETAP, 1982; Payne et al., 1984). In the winter therange shifts to mid-Atlantic Bight and offshore waters (Payne et al., 1984). Risso’s dolphins may alsooccur in the waters from the mid-shelf to over the slope from Georges Bank south to, and including, themid-Atlantic Bight, primarily in the summer and fall (Payne et al. 1984). Only rare occurrences are notedin the Gulf of Maine (Payne et al. 1984).In the North Atlantic, there appears to be a summer calving peak (Jefferson et al., 1993); however,locations of breeding areas are unknown.VACAPES OPAREA Risso’s dolphin occurrence - As mentioned above, Risso’s dolphins are mostcommonly found in areas with steep bottom topography and are often sighted along the northern wall ofthe Gulf Stream which is a region of enhanced productivity. Records of this species in the Study Areagenerally follow this pattern of distribution with patches of sightings recorded along the path of the GulfStream and over steep portions of the continental slope (DoN, 2008a). Risso’s dolphins may occur justinshore of the shelf break and seaward of the shelf break throughout the OPAREA year-round based onsighting data and the preference of this species for deep waters.Lower Chesapeake Bay Risso’s dolphin occurrence - The Risso’s dolphin is considered extralimital inthe Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area Risso’s dolphin density - The density estimates for training areas whereexplosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1.Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a). Density is not expected to beuniform across the warning area. Risso’s dolphins will likely be concentrated in waters near and seawardof the shelf break based on habitat preferences.Rough-toothed DolphinThe rough-toothed dolphin is relatively robust with a cone-shaped head with no demarcation between themelon and beak (Jefferson et al., 1993). Rough-toothed dolphins reach 2.8 m in length (Jefferson et al.,1993). They feed on cephalopods and fish, including large fish such as dorado (Miyazaki and Perrin,1994; Reeves et al., 1999; Pitman and Stinchcomb, 2002).Status and management - No abundance estimate is available for rough-toothed dolphins in the westernNorth Atlantic (Waring et al. 2008). The rough-toothed dolphin is under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - The rough-toothed dolphin is regarded as an offshore species that prefers deep waters; however,it can occur in shallower waters as well (e.g., Gannier and West, 2005). Tagging data for this species fromthe Gulf of Mexico and western North Atlantic provide important information on habitat preferences.Three dolphins with satellite-linked transmitters released in 1998 off the Gulf Coast of Florida weretracked off the Florida panhandle in average water depths of 195 m (Wells et al., 1999b). Dolphinsreleased in March of 2005 after a mass stranding were tagged with satellite-linked transmitters andreleased southeast of Fort Pierce moved within the Gulf Stream and parallel to the continental shelf off3-182 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsFlorida, Georgia, and South Carolina, in waters with a depth of 400 to 800 m (Manire and Wells, 2005).They later moved northeast into waters with a depth greater than 4,000 m (Manire and Wells, 2005).Another tagged dolphin from released after the 2005 mass stranding moved north as far as Charleston,South Carolina, before returning to the Miami area, remaining in relatively shallow waters (Wells, 2007).During May 2005, seven more rough-toothed dolphins (stranded in the Florida Keys in March 2005 andrehabilitated) were tagged and released by the Marine Mammal Conservancy in the Florida Keys (Wells,2007). During an initial period of apparent disorientation in the shallow waters west of Andros Island,they continued to the east, then moved north through Crooked Island Passage, and paralleled the WestIndies (Wells, 2007). The last signal placed them northeast of the Lesser Antilles (Wells, 2007). DuringSeptember 2005, two more individuals (from the same mass stranding) were satellite-tagged and releasedeast of the Florida Keys and proceeded south to a deep trench close to the north coast of Cuba (Wells,2007).Acoustics and Hearing - The rough-toothed dolphin produces a variety of sounds, including broadbandecholocation clicks and whistles. Echolocation clicks (duration less than 250 microseconds [sec])typically have a frequency range of 0.1 to 200 kHz, with a dominant frequency of 25 kHz (Miyazaki andPerrin, 1994; Yu et al., 2003; Chou, 2005). Whistles (duration less than 1 sec) have a wide frequencyrange of 0.3 to greater than 24 kHz but dominate in the 2 to 14 kHz range (Miyazaki and Perrin, 1994; Yuet al., 2003).Auditory evoked potential measurements were performed on six individuals involved in a mass strandingevent on Hutchinson Island, Florida in August 2004 (Cook et al., 2005). The rough-toothed dolphin candetect sounds between 5 and 80 kHz and is most likely capable of detecting frequencies much higher than80 kHz (Cook et al., 2005).Distribution - Rough-toothed dolphins are found in tropical to warm-temperate waters globally, rarelyranging north of 40°N or south of 35°S (Miyazaki and Perrin, 1994). This species is not a commonlyencountered species in the areas where it is known to occur (Jefferson, 2002). Not many records for thisspecies exist from the western North Atlantic, but they indicate that this species occurs from Virginiasouth to Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, the West Indies, and along the northeastern coast of South America(Leatherwood et al., 1976; Jefferson et al. 2008).Seasonality and location of rough-toothed dolphin breeding is unknown.VACAPES OPAREA rough-toothed dolphin occurrence - A few strandings and two sightings have beenrecorded in or near the OPAREA (DoN, 2008a). Rough-toothed dolphins may occur seaward of the shelfbreak based on this species’ preference for deep waters. During the winter, the rough-toothed dolphin’soccurrence is expected in warmer waters so occurrence in the OPAREA may follow the western edge ofthe standard deviation of the Gulf Stream. The rough-toothed dolphin may occur in the OPAREA yearround.Lower Chesapeake Bay rough-toothed dolphin occurrence - The rough-toothed dolphin in consideredextralimital in the Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area rough-toothed dolphin occurrence - The density estimates for training areaswhere explosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1. Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a). Density is not expected to beuniform across the warning area. Risso’s dolphins will likely be concentrated in waters near and seawardof the shelf break and/or along the Gulf Stream based on habitat preferences.3-183 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISSpinner DolphinChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsThe spinner dolphin generally has a dark eye-to-flipper stripe and dark lips and beak tip (Jefferson et al.,1993). This species typically has a three-part color pattern (dark gray cape, light gray sides, and whitebelly). Adults can reach 2.4 m in length (Jefferson et al., 1993). Spinner dolphins feed primarily on smallmesopelagic fish, squid, and sergestid shrimp (Perrin and Gilpatrick, 1994).Status and management - No abundance estimates are currently available for the western North Atlanticstock of spinner dolphins (Waring et al. 2008). Stock structure in the western North Atlantic is unknown(Waring et al. 2008). The spinner dolphin is under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - Spinner dolphins occur in both oceanic and coastal environments. Most sightings of this speciesin tropical waters have been associated with inshore waters, islands, or banks (Perrin and Gilpatrick,1994).Spinner dolphin distribution in the Gulf of Mexico and off the northeastern U.S. coast is primarily inoffshore waters. Along the northeastern U.S. and in the Gulf of Mexico, they are distributed in waterswith a depth greater than 2,000 m (CETAP, 1982; Davis et al., 1998). Off the eastern U.S. coast, spinnerdolphins were sighted within the Gulf Stream, which is consistent with the oceanic distribution andwarm-water preference of this genus (Waring et al., 1992).Acoustics and Hearing - Pulses, whistles, and clicks have been recorded from this species. Pulses andwhistles have dominant frequency ranges of 5 to 60 kHz and 8 to 12 kHz, respectively (Ketten, 1998).Spinner dolphins consistently produce whistles with frequencies as high as 16.9 to 17.9 kHz with amaximum frequency for the fundamental component at 24.9 kHz (Bazúa-Durán and Au, 2002; Lammerset al., 2003). Clicks have a dominant frequency of 60 kHz (Ketten, 1998). The burst pulses arepredominantly ultrasonic, often with little or no energy below 20 kHz (Lammers et al., 2003). Sourcelevels between 195 and 222 dB re 1 Pa-s peak-to-peak have been recorded for spinner dolphin clicks(Schotten et al., 2004).Distribution - Spinner dolphins are found in subtropical and tropical waters worldwide, with differentgeographical forms in various ocean basins. The range of this species extends to near 40°N latitude(Jefferson et al., 1993). Distribution in the western North Atlantic is thought to extend from NorthCarolina south to Venezuela (Schmidly, 1981), including the Gulf of Mexico (Davis et al. 2002).Breeding occurs across all season with calving peaks that may range from late spring to fall for differentpopulations (Jefferson et al. 2008); however, location of breeding areas is unknown.VACAPES OPAREA spinner dolphin occurrence - Several stranding, sighting, and bycatch records aredocumented in or near the OPAREA (DoN, 2008a). Spinner dolphins prefer warm, offshore waters asevidenced by the sighting and bycatch records associated with the Gulf Stream in the winter and springmonths (DoN, 2008a). Spinner dolphins may occur from the vicinity of the continental shelf break toeastward of the OPAREA boundary in association with the Gulf Stream’s northern boundary. Noseasonal differences in occurrence are anticipated.Lower Chesapeake Bay spinner dolphin occurrence - The spinner dolphin is considered extralimital inthe Chesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area spinner dolphin density - There were not sufficient data available to estimate adensity for the Study Area; nor is there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stock assessment report(DoN, 2007a).3-184 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISStriped DolphinChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsThe striped dolphin is uniquely marked with black lateral stripes from eye to flipper and eye to anus.There is also a light gray spinal blaze originating above and behind the eye and narrowing below andbehind the dorsal fin (Jefferson et al., 2008). This species reaches 2.6 m in length. Small, mid-water fish(in particular, myctophids or lanternfish) and squids are the dominant prey (Perrin et al., 1994c;Ringelstein et al., 2006).Status and management - The best estimate of striped dolphin abundance in the western North Atlantic is94,462 individuals (Waring et al. 2008). The striped dolphin is under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - Striped dolphins are usually found beyond the continental shelf, typically over the continentalslope out to oceanic waters and are often associated with convergence zones and waters influenced byupwelling (Au and Perryman, 1985). This species also occurs in conjunction with the shelf edge in thenortheastern U.S. (between Cape Hatteras and Georges Bank (Hain et al. 1985). Striped dolphins areknown to associate with the Gulf Stream’s northern wall and warm-core ring features (Waring et al.,1992).Acoustics and Hearing - Striped dolphin whistles range from 6 to greater than 24 kHz, with dominantfrequencies ranging from 8 to 12.5 kHz (Thomson and Richardson, 1995). A single striped dolphin’shearing range, determined by using standard psycho-acoustic techniques, was from 0.5 to 160 kHz withbest sensitivity at 64 kHz (Kastelein et al., 2003).Distribution - Striped dolphins are distributed worldwide in cool-temperate to tropical zones. In thewestern North Atlantic, this species occurs from Nova Scotia southward to the Caribbean Sea, Gulf ofMexico, and Brazil (Baird et al. 1993; Jefferson et al. 2008). Off the northeastern U.S., striped dolphinsare distributed along the continental shelf break from Cape Hatteras to the southern margin of GeorgesBank, as well as offshore over the continental slope and continental rise in the mid-Atlantic region(CETAP, 1982).Off Japan, where their biology has been best studied, there are two calving peaks: one in summerand one in winter (Perrin et al. 1994c). However, in the western Atlantic breeding times andlocations are largely unknown.VACAPES OPAREA striped dolphin occurrence - The striped dolphin is a deep water species that isgenerally distributed north of Cape Hatteras (CETAP 1982), which is supported by the known distributionof sightings in the OPAREA (DoN, 2008a). The southern edge of this species’ predicted occurrence in theVACAPES OPAREA appears to be influenced by meanderings of the Gulf Stream (DoN, 2008a).Sightings predominately occur along the Gulf Stream’s northern wall, where it travels through thesouthern part of the VACAPES OPAREA. Striped dolphins may occur near and seaward of the shelfbreak throughout the OPAREA year-round.Lower Chesapeake Bay striped dolphin occurrence - The striped dolphin is considered extralimital in theChesapeake Bay region.VACAPES Study Area striped dolphin density - The density estimates for training areas whereexplosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES OPAREA are provided in Table 3.7-1.Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Reports (DoN, 2007a). Density is not expected to beuniform across the warning area. Striped dolphins will likely be concentrated in waters near and seawardof the shelf break and/or along the Gulf Stream based on habitat preferences.3-185 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISHarbor SealChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsThe harbor seal (or common seal) is a small- to medium-sized seal. Adult males attain a maximum lengthof 1.9 m and weigh 70 to 150 kg; females reach 1.7 m in length and weigh between 60 and 110 kg(Jefferson et al., 1993). Northeastern U.S. harbor seals eat sand lance, Atlantic herring, cod, and winterflounder (Payne and Selzer, 1989).Status and management - Five subspecies of Phoca vitulina are recognized; Phoca vitulina concolor isthe form found in the western North Atlantic (Rice, 1998). Harbor seals are the most common andfrequently reported seals in the northeastern U.S. (Katona et al., 1993). Currently, harbor seals along thecoast of the eastern U.S. and Canadian coasts are considered a single population (Waring et al., 2008).The best estimate of abundance of harbor seals in the western North Atlantic stock is 99,340 individuals(Waring et al., 2008). An estimated 5,575 harbor seals over-wintered in southern New England in 1999,increasing from an estimated 2,834 individuals in 1981 (Barlas, 1999). Kraus and Early (1995) suggestedthat the northeastern U.S. population increase could represent increasing southward shifts in winteringdistribution. The harbor seal is under NMFS jurisdiction.Habitat - This is a coastal species, usually found near shore, and frequently occupying bays, estuaries,and inlets (Baird, 2001). Individual harbor seals have been observed miles upstream in coastal rivers(Baird, 2001).Although primarily aquatic, harbor seals also utilize terrestrial environments where they haul outperiodically. Haulout substrates vary but include intertidal and subtidal rocky outcrops, sandbars, sandybeaches, and even peat banks in salt marshes (Wilson, 1978; Schneider and Payne, 1983; Gilbert andGuldager, 1998). Along the majority of the New England coast, harbor seals haul out on rockyoutcroppings and intertidal ledges (Kenney, 1994; Gilbert and Guldager, 1998; Schroeder, 2000). In themid-Atlantic Bight, harbor seals are commonly observed hauled out on dry parts of submerged structures(Steimle and Zetlin, 2000).Acoustics and Hearing - Harbor seal males and females produce a variety of low-frequency in-airvocalizations including snorts, grunts, and growls, while pups make individually unique calls for motherrecognition (main energy at 0.35 kHz) (Thomson and Richardson, 1995). Adult males also produceseveral underwater sounds such as roars, bubbly growls, grunts, groans, and creaks during the breedingseason. These sounds typically range from 0.025 to 4 kHz (duration range: 0.1 sec to 11 seconds) (Hanggiand Schusterman, 1994). Hanggi and Schusteman (1994) found that there is individual variation in thedominant frequency range of sounds between different males, and Van Parijs et al. (2003) reportedoceanic, regional, population, and site-specific levels of variation (i.e., could represent vocal dialects)between males.Harbor seals hear nearly as well in air as underwater (Kastak and Schusterman, 1998). Harbor seals arecapable of hearing frequencies from 1 to 180 kHz (most sensitive at frequencies between 1 kHz and 60kHz using behavioral response testing) in water and from 0.25 to 30 kHz in air (most sensitive from 6 to16 kHz using behavior and auditory brainstem response testing) (Richardson, 1995; Terhune andTurnbull, 1995; Wolski et al., 2003). Despite the absence of an external ear, harbor seals are capable ofdirectional hearing in-air, giving them the ability to mask out background noise (Holt and Schusterman,2007). Underwater sound localization was demonstrated by Bodson et al. (2006). TTS for the harbor sealwas assessed at 2.5 kHz and 3.53 kHz (exposure level was 80 and 95 dB above threshold), by Kastak etal. (2005). Data indicated that the range of TTS onset would be between 183-206 dB re: 1Pa2-s (Kastaket al., 2005).Distribution - Harbor seal distribution is associated with temperate waters (Jefferson et al., 1993; Stanleyet al., 1996). Harbor seals are year-round residents of eastern Canada (Boulva, 1973) and coastal Maine3-186 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammals(Katona et al., 1993; Gilbert and Guldager, 1998). The greatest concentrations of harbor seals innortheastern U.S. waters are found along the coast of Maine, specifically in Machias and Penobscot baysand off Mt. Desert and Swans Islands (Katona et al., 1993).Harbor seals occur south of Maine from late September through late May (Rosenfeld et al., 1988;Whitman and Payne, 1990; Barlas, 1999; Schroeder, 2000). During winter, the population divides anddisperses offshore into the Gulf of Maine south into southern New England, and a portion remains incoastal waters of Maine and Canada. From at least October through December, harbor seal numbersdecrease in Canadian waters (Terhune, 1985) but increase three to five fold south of Maine (Rosenfeld etal., 1988). A general southward movement along the Canadian coast and northeastern U.S. is thought tooccur during this period (Rosenfeld et al., 1988). Tagging efforts by Gilbert and Wynne (1985) supportthis hypothesis. Although harbor seals of all ages and both sexes frequent winter haulout sites south ofMaine, many of the over-wintering individuals are immature, suggesting that there might be seasonalsegregation resulting from age-related competition for haulout sites near preferred pupping ledges andage-related differences in food requirements (Whitman and Payne, 1990; Slocum and Schoelkopf, 2001).The timing of harbor seal pupping along the eastern North American coast varies geographically (Temteet al. 1991). Pupping takes place from mid May through mid June along the Maine coast (Richardson,1976; Wilson, 1978; DeHart, 2002).VACAPES OPAREA harbor seal occurrence—Harbor seals occur seasonally along the southern NewEngland and New York coasts from September through late May (Schneider and Payne 1983; Waring etal. 2007). Occurrences of juvenile and possibly adult harbor seals are increasing in frequency in the mid-Atlantic region, primarily December through April (Barco, 2008). Harbor seals are considered rare in theVACAPES OPAREA, which is well south of this specie’s typical range. Harbor seals may occur in thenearshore portions of the OPAREA.Lower Chesapeake Bay harbor seal occurrence - The harbor seal is considered a regular part of themarine fauna of Chesapeake Bay, and healthy individuals are often reported for the area (Barco, 2007).The harbor seal is likely to occur in the Bay from December through April.Harbor seals haul out at Linkhorn Bay in Virginia Beach and at Hopewell in the James River (Blaylock1985). Infrequently, small groups of harbor seals may be found near the islands of the Chesapeake BayBridge-Tunnel (Blaylock 1985).VACAPES Study Area harbor seal density - There were not sufficient data available to estimate adensity for the Study Area. Nor was there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stock assessment used toderive density (DoN, 2007a).Gray SealGray seals are large and robust; adult males can reach 2.3 m in length and weigh 310 kg (Jefferson et al.1993). The sexes are sexually dimorphic (Bonner 1981).Gray seals feed on a variety of fish species and cephalopods; they are largely demersal or benthic feeders(Bonner 1981; D. Thompson et al. 1991; P.M. Thompson et al. 1991; Hall 2002). The only preyinformation for gray seals in U.S. waters is from Muskeget Island; prey consumed included windowpaneflounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis), sand lance, skates (Rajidae), andgadids (Rough 1995).Status and management - There are at least three populations of gray seal in the North Atlantic Ocean:eastern North Atlantic, western North Atlantic, and Baltic (Boskovic et al. 1996). The western NorthAtlantic stock is equivalent to the eastern Canada breeding population (Waring et al. 2008). There are twobreeding concentrations in eastern Canada: one at Sable Island and the other on the pack ice in the Gulf of3-187 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsSt. Lawrence. These two breeding groups are treated as separate populations for management purposes(Mohn and Bowen 1996). There is an estimated 195,000 gray seals in Canada (DFO 2003). The herd onSable Island is thought be growing and may have more than doubled in number, but the Gulf of St.Lawrence population is declining (Bowen et al. 2003). This decline has been attributed to sharp decline inthe quantity of suitable ice breeding habitat in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence possibly due to climatechange (Hammill et al. 2003). Small breeding colonies have also been documented along the coast ofMaine and Massachusetts (Katona et al. 1993; Rough 1995).Present data are insufficient to calculate a population estimate for gray seals in U.S. waters; howeversurveys of the Maine coast in 2001 counted 1,731 and a 1999 estimate of the Massachusetts populationindicated 5,611 animals (Baraff and Loughlin 2000; Waring et al. 2008). Gray seal abundance appears tobe increasing in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Waring et al. 2008). The gray seal is under the jurisdiction ofNMFS.Habitat - The gray seal is considered to be a coastal species (Lesage and Hammill 2001). Gray seals mayforage far from shore but do not appear to leave the continental shelf regions (Lesage and Hammill 2001).Gray seals haul out on ice, exposed reefs, or beaches of undisturbed islands (Lesage and Hammill 2001).Haulout sites are often near rough seas and riptides (Katona et al. 1993). Remote, uninhabited islandstend to have the largest gray seal haulout sites (Reeves et al. 1992). Weather (strong currents and storms)may change the configuration of haulout sites and result in distribution shifts (Barlas 1999). Gray seals inthe Baltic Sea were found to select habitat on the basis of bottom depth or bathymetric features such asslope gradients, which likely correlate with prey availability, yet remain in the vicinity of a specifichaulout site for extended periods (Sjöberg and Ball 2000). Foraging areas of gray seals in the North Seaare often localized areas characterized by a gravel/sand sediment, which is the preferred burrowingburrow of the sand lance, an important prey item of the gray seal (McConnell et al. 1992).Acoustics and Hearing- Ketten (1998) determined that most pinnipeds species have peak sensitivitiesbetween 1 to 20 kHz. Asselin et al. (1993) classified all gray seal vocalizations into seven call types. Themajority of calls consisted of guttural "rups" and "rupes", ranging from 0.1 to 3 kHz, or low-frequencygrowls ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 kHz (Asselin et al., 1993).Distribution - The gray seal is found throughout temperate and subarctic waters on both sides of theNorth Atlantic Ocean (Davies 1957). In the western North Atlantic Ocean, the gray seal population iscentered in the Canadian Maritimes, including the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic Coasts of NovaScotia, Newfoundland, and Labrador. The largest concentrations are found in the southern half of the Gulfof St. Lawrence (where most seals breed on ice) and around Sable Island (where most seals breed onland) (Davies 1957; Hammill and Gosselin 1995; Hammill et al. 1998). Active breeding colonies alsoexist in Maine and Massachusetts in the U.S. (Waring et al. 2007). Gray seals currently range into thenortheastern U.S., with strandings as far south as North Carolina (Hammill et al. 1998; Waring et al.2007).VACAPES OPAREA gray seal occurrence - Reports of young gray seals are increasing in frequencyduring winter and spring months in the mid-Atlantic region (Barco, 2008). Gray seals are extralimital inthe VACAPES OPAREA.Lower Chesapeake Bay gray seal occurrence - Sporadic occurrences of the gray seal are observed inChesapeake Bay, including healthy, not just sickly stranded or dead individuals (Barco, 2007). Recordsfrom the mid-Atlantic Bight are typically from winter and spring. There is even one record – a March1998 stranding recorded by NMFS – from upper Chesapeake Bay. Two notable records in the vicinity ofChesapeake Bay include two incidences of pupping at Assateague Island in 1986 and 1989 (Katona, etal., 1993). Gray seals may occur in Chesapeake Bay throughout the year.3-188 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsVACAPES Study Area gray seal density - There were not sufficient data available to estimate a densityfor the Study Area. Nor is there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stock assessment report (DoN,2007a).Harp SealThese medium-sized phocid seals reach a size of 1.7 m and 130 kg; females are slightly smaller(Lavigne, 2002). Prey-preference studies have revealed that harp seals prefer small fish (such as capelin)to pelagic crustaceans (Lindstrøm et al., 1998).Status and management - The harp seal is the most abundant pinniped in the western North AtlanticOcean (Hammill and Stenson, 2005). The 2004 Canadian population is estimated at around 5.9 millionseals and has changed little since 1996 (DFO, 2005). Data are insufficient to calculate a populationestimate for U.S. waters, but the best estimate for all western North Atlantic harp seals is 5.9 million(Waring et al. 2008). The harp seal is under the jurisdiction of NMFS.Habitat - Harp seals are closely associated with drifting pack ice on which they breed and molt; theyforage in the surrounding waters (Ronald and Healey 1981; Lydersen and Kovacs 1993). Harp sealsprefer rough pack ice that is at least 0.25 m thick; they maintain holes in the ice for easy access to thewater (Ronald and Healey 1981; Ronald and Gots 2003). Harp seals make extensive movements overmuch of the continental shelf within their winter range in the waters off Newfoundland (Bowen and Siniff1999).Acoustics and Hearing- The harp seal’s vocal repertoire consists of at least 27 underwater and two aerialcall types (Serrano, 2001). Harp seals are most vocal during the breeding season (Ronald and Healey,1981). Serrano (2001) found that calls of low frequency and with few pulse repetitions werepredominantly used outside the breeding season, while calls of high frequency and with a high number ofpulse repetitions predominated in the breeding season. Terhune and Ronald (1986) measured sourcelevels of underwater vocalizations of 140 dB re 1 Pa-s. Vester et al. (2001) recorded ultrasonic clickswith a frequency range of 66 to 120 kHz, with the main energy at 93+22 kHz and average source levels of143+ dB re 1 Pa-s in conjunction with live fish hunting.Behavioral audiograms have been obtained for harp seals (Terhune and Ronald, 1972). The harp seal’sear is adapted for better hearing underwater. Underwater, hearing measures between 0.76 to 100 kHz,with areas of increased sensitivity at 2 and 22.9 kHz (Terhune and Ronald, 1972). In air, hearing isirregular and slightly insensitive with the audiogram being generally flat (Terhune and Ronald, 1971).Distribution - Harp seals are distributed in the pack ice of the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans, fromNewfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence to northern Russia (Reeves et al., 2002). Most of the westernNorth Atlantic harp seals congregate off the east coast of Newfoundland-Labrador (the Front) to pup andbreed. The remainder (the Gulf herd) gather to pup near the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence(Ronald and Dougan, 1982).The number of sightings and strandings of harp seals off the northeastern U.S. has been increasing(McAlpine and Walker, 1990; Rubinstein, 1994; Stevick and Fernald, 1998; McAlpine et al., 1999a;McAlpine et al. 1999b; Harris et al., 2002). Sightings are generally recorded during January through May(Harris et al. 2002), when the western North Atlantic stock of harp seals is at its most southern point indistribution (Waring et al., 2007). Occurrences as far south as South Carolina are reported (McFee, 2006).VACAPES OPAREA harp seal occurrence— Harp seal occurrences are becoming more frequent in themid-Atlantic region, primarily during the months of December through April (Barco, 2008). Harp sealsfare extralimital in the VACAPES OPAREA.3-189 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsLower Chesapeake Bay harp seal occurrence - There are sporadic occurrences of the harp seal in theChesapeake Bay region. Occurrences in the entire mid-Atlantic region are from January through June.There are records of occurrence around Chesapeake Bay for winter and spring (February through May)(McApline and Walker, 1990; Harris et al., 2002). Goodwin (1954) discusses two individuals foundwithin Chesapeake Bay: an adult caught in a fisherman’s net on March 12, 1945 at Little Creek (it wastied to a pier, but managed to escape), and the next day, a baby harp seal came ashore at Little Creek anddied. On February 22, 2007, a harp seal was found in the dunes at First Landing State Park on CapeHenry. It was released on March 30, 2007 from First Landing State Park with a satellite tag. Anothernoteworthy individual was stranded on April 20, 2007 in Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge and wasreleased (also with a satellite tag) on May 19, 2007 from First Landing State Park. Harp seals may occurin Chesapeake Bay during the winter, spring, and early summer.VACAPES Study Area harp seal density - There was not sufficient data available to estimate a densityfor the Study Area. Nor is there an abundance estimate in the NOAA stock assessment report (DoN,2007a).3.7.3 Environmental ConsequencesThe following sections provide an in-depth discussion of the biological framework for assessing impactsof sound on marine species. Section 3.7.3.1 focuses on the acoustic characteristics of sound. Thediscussion in this section is presented primarily as it relates to sonar, but much of the information is alsoapplicable to the acoustic components of explosives. Additional consideration was given to discussing theeffects of sound from impulsive sources related to underwater detonations. A thorough analysis of theseimpacts is provided in Section 3.7.3.2.3.7.3.1 Conceptual Biological Framework for Assessing Marine Mammal Responseto Anthropogenic SoundThe regulatory language of the MMPA and ESA requires that all anticipated responses to sound resultingfrom Navy exercises be considered relative to their potential impact on animal growth, survivability andreproduction. Whether an effect significantly affects a marine mammal must be determined from the bestavailable science regarding marine mammal responses to sound.A conceptual framework (Figure 3.7-2) has been constructed to assist in ordering and evaluating thepotential responses of marine mammals to sound. Although the framework is described in the context ofeffects of sonar on marine mammals, the same approach could be used for fish, sea turtles, sea birds, etc.,that are exposed to other sound sources (e.g., impulsive sounds from explosions); the framework needonly be consulted for potential pathways leading to possible effects.OrganizationThe framework is a “block diagram” or “flow chart”, organized from left to right, and grosslycompartmentalized according to the phenomena that occur within each block. These include the physicsof sound propagation (physics component), the potential physiological responses associated with soundexposure (physiology component), the behavioral processes that might be affected (behavior component),and the life functions that may be immediately affected by changes in behavior at the time of exposure(life function – proximate). These are extended to longer term life functions (life function – ultimate) andinto population and species effects.Throughout the flow chart, dotted and solid lines are used to connect related events. Solid lines are thoseitems which “will” happen, and dotted lines are those which “might” happen, but which must beconsidered (including those hypothesized to occur but for which there is no direct evidence). Blue dottedlines indicate instances of “feedback,” where the information flows back to a previous block. Some boxes3-190 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsare colored according to how they relate to the definitions of harassment in the MMPA, with redindicating Level A harassment (injury) and yellow indicating Level B harassment (behavioraldisturbance).The following sections describe the flowthrough of the framework, starting with the production of asound, and flowing through marine mammal exposures, responses to the exposures, and the possibleconsequences of the exposure. Along with the description of each block, an overview of the state ofknowledge is described with regard to marine mammal responses to sound and the consequences of thoseexposures. Application of the conceptual framework to impact analyses and regulations defined by theMMPA and ESA are discussed in subsequent sections.Physics BlockSounds emitted from a source propagate through the environment to create a spatially variable soundfield. To determine if an animal is “exposed” to the sound, the received sound level at the animal’slocation is compared to the background ambient noise. An animal is considered exposed if thepredicted received sound level, at the animal’s location, is above the ambient level of background noise.If the animal is determined to be exposed, two possible scenarios must be considered with respect to theanimal’s physiology, responses of the auditory system and responses of non-auditory system tissues.These are not independent pathways and both must be considered since the same sound could affect bothauditory and non-auditory tissues.Physiology BlockAuditory System ResponseThe primary physiological effects of sound are on the auditory system (Ward, 1997). The mammalianauditory system consists of the outer ear, middle ear, inner ear, and central nervous system. Sound wavesare transmitted through the outer and middle ears to fluids within the inner ear. The inner ear containsdelicate electromechanical hair cells that convert the fluid motions into neural impulses that are sent to thebrain. The hair cells within the inner ear are the most vulnerable to overstimulation by noise exposure(Yost, 1994).Potential auditory system effects are assessed by considering the characteristics of the received sound(e.g., amplitude, frequency, duration) and the sensitivity/susceptibility of the exposed animals. Some ofthese assessments can be numerically based, while others will be necessarily qualitative, due to lack ofinformation, or will need to be extrapolated from other species for which information exists. Potentialphysiological responses to a sound exposure are discussed here in order of increasing severity,progressing from perception of sound to auditory trauma.No PerceptionThe received level is not of sufficient amplitude, frequency, and duration to be perceptible to the animal(i.e., the sound is not audible). By extension, this cannot result in a stress response or a change inbehavior.PerceptionSounds with sufficient amplitude and duration to be detected within the background ambient noise areassumed to be perceived (i.e., sensed) by an animal. This category includes sounds from the threshold ofaudibility through the normal dynamic range of hearing. To determine whether an animal perceives thesound, the received level, frequency, and duration of the sound are compared to what is known of thespecies’ hearing sensitivity. Within this conceptual framework, a sound capable of auditory masking,auditory fatigue, or trauma is assumed to be perceived by the animal.3-191 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsFigure 3.7-2 Conceptual biological framework used to order and evaluate the potential responses of marine mammals to sound.3-192 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsInformation on hearing sensitivity exists for approximately 25 of the nearly 130 species of marinemammals. Within the cetaceans, these studies have focused primarily on odontocete species (e.g.,Szymanski et al., 1999; Kastelein et al., 2002; Nachtigall et al., 2005; Yuen et al., 2005; Houser andFinneran, 2006). Because of size and availability, direct measurements of mysticete whale hearing arenearly non-existent (Ridgway and Carder, 2001). Measurements of hearing sensitivity have beenconducted on species representing all of the families within the pinniped families (Phocidae, Otariidae,Odobenidae) (Schusterman et al., 1972; Moore and Schusterman, 1987; Terhune, 1988; Thomas et al.,1990b; Turnbull and Terhune, 1990; Kastelein et al., 2002, 2005; Wolski et al., 2003;). Hearingsensitivity measured in these studies can be compared to the amplitude, duration and frequency of areceived sound, as well as the ambient environmental noise, to predict whether or not an exposed marinemammal will perceive a sound to which it is exposed.The features of a perceived sound (e.g., amplitude, frequency, duration, and temporal pattern) are alsoused to judge whether the sound exposure is capable of producing a stress response. Factors to consider inthis decision include the probability of the animal being naïve or experienced with the sound (i.e., whatare the known/unknown consequences to the animal from the exposure). Although preliminary because ofthe small numbers of samples collected, different types of sounds (impulsive vs. continuous broadbandvs. continuous tonal) have been shown to produce variable stress responses in marine mammals. Belugasdemonstrated no catecholamine (hormones released in situations of stress) response to the playback of oildrilling sounds (Thomas et al., 1990a) but showed an increase in catecholamines following exposure toimpulsive sounds produced from a seismic water gun (Romano et al., 2004). A dolphin exposed to thesame seismic water gun signals did not demonstrate a catecholamine response, but did demonstrate anelevation in aldosterone, a hormone that has been suggested as being a significant indicator of stress inodontocetes (St. Aubin and Geraci, 1989; St. Aubin et al., 2001). Increases in heart rate were observed indolphins to which conspecific calls were played, although no increase in heart rate was observed whentank noise was played back (Miksis et al., 2001). Collectively, these results suggest a variable responsethat depends on the characteristics of the received signal and prior experience with the received signal.Audible natural and artificial sounds can potentially result in auditory masking, a condition that occurswhen a sound interferes with an animal’s ability to hear other sounds. Masking occurs when theperception of a sound is interfered with by a second sound and the probability of masking increases as thetwo sounds increase in similarity. It is important to distinguish auditory fatigue, which persists after thesound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Critical ratios have beendetermined for pinnipeds (Southall et al., 2000; Southall et al., 2003) and detections of signals undervarying masking conditions have been determined for active echolocation and passive listening tasks inodontocetes (Johnson, 1971; Au and Pawloski, 1989; Erbe, 2000). These studies provide baselineinformation from which the probability of masking can be estimated. The potential impact to a marinemammal depends on the type of signal that is being masked, important cues from conspecifics, signalsproduced by predators, or interference with echolocation are likely to have a greater impact on a marinemammal when they are masked than will a sound of little biological consequence.Unlike auditory fatigue, which always results in a localized stress response because the sensory tissues arebeing stimulated beyond their normal physiological range, masking may or may not result in a stressresponse since it depends on the degree and duration of the masking effect and the signal that is beingmasked. Masking may also result in a unique circumstance where an animal’s ability to detect othersounds is compromised without the animal’s knowledge. This could conceivably result in sensoryimpairment and subsequent behavior change; in this case, the change in behavior is the lack of a responsethat would normally be made if sensory impairment did not occur. For this reason, masking also may leaddirectly to behavior change without first causing a stress response.3-193 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsThe most intense underwater sounds that may occur in the VACAPES Study Area are those produced bysonars and other acoustic sources that are in the mid-frequency or higher range. The sonar signals arelikely within the audible range of most cetaceans, but are very limited in the temporal, frequency, andspatial domains. In particular, the pulse lengths are short, the duty cycle low, the events aregeographically and temporally dispersed, event durations are limited, and the tactical sonars transmitwithin a narrow band of frequencies (typically less than one-third octave). Finally, high levels of soundare confined to a volume around the source and are constrained by attenuation at mid- and highfrequencies,as well as by limited beam widths and pulse lengths. For these reasons, the likelihood ofsonar operations causing masking effects is considered negligible in this EIS/OEIS.Auditory FatigueThe most familiar effect of exposure to high intensity sound is hearing loss, meaning an increase in thehearing threshold. This phenomenon is called a noise-induced threshold shift (NITS), or simply athreshold shift (TS) (Miller, 1974). A TS may be either permanent, in which case it is called a permanentthreshold shift (PTS), or temporary, in which case it is called a temporary threshold shift (TTS). Thedistinction between PTS and TTS is based on whether there is a complete recovery of a TS following asound exposure. If the TS eventually returns to zero (the threshold returns to the preexposure value), theTS is a TTS. If the TS does not return to zero but leaves some finite amount of TS, then that remainingTS is a PTS. Figure 3.7-3 (Two Hypothetical Threshold Shifts) shows one hypothetical TS thatcompletely recovers, a TTS, and one that does not completely recover, leaving some PTS.Figure 3.7-3Two Hypothetical Thresold ShiftsAlthough both auditory trauma and fatigue may result in hearing loss, the mechanisms responsible forauditory fatigue differ from auditory trauma and would primarily consist of metabolic fatigue andexhaustion of the hair cells and cochlear tissues. Note that the term “auditory fatigue” is often used tomean “TTS”; however, in this EIS/OEIS we use a more general meaning to differentiate fatiguemechanisms (e.g., metabolic exhaustion and distortion of tissues) from trauma mechanisms (e.g., physicaldestruction of cochlear tissues occurring at the time of exposure). Auditory fatigue may result in PTS orTTS but is always assumed to result in a stress response. The actual amount of threshold shift depends onthe amplitude, duration, frequency, and temporal pattern of the sound exposure.There are no PTS data for cetaceans; however, a number of investigators have measured TTS in cetaceans(Schlundt et al., 2000, 2006; Finneran et al., 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). Inthese studies hearing thresholds were measured in trained dolphins and belugas before and after exposure3-194 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsto intense sounds. Some of the more important data obtained from these studies are onset-TTS levels –exposure levels sufficient to cause a just-measurable amount of TTS, often defined as 6 dB of TTS (forexample, Schlundt et al., 2000). The existing cetacean TTS data show the following for the speciesstudied in this EIS/OEIS and non-impulsive, mid-frequency sounds of interest: The growth and recovery of TTS are analogous to those in land mammals. This means that, as in landmammals, cetacean TSs depend on the amplitude, duration, frequency content, and temporal pattern ofthe sound exposure. Threshold shifts will generally increase with the amplitude and duration of soundexposure. For continuous sounds, exposures of equal energy will lead to approximately equal effects(Ward, 1997). For intermittent sounds, less TS will occur than from a continuous exposure with thesame energy (some recovery will occur during the quiet period between exposures) (Kryter et al.,1965; Ward, 1997). Sound pressure level (SPL) by itself is not a good predictor of onset-TTS, since the amount of TTSdepends on both SPL and duration. Exposure energy flux density level (EL) is correlated with the amount of TTS and is a good predictorfor onset-TTS from single, continuous exposures with variable durations. This agrees with human TTSdata presented by Ward et al. (1958, 1959).The most relevant TTS data for analyzing the effects of mid-frequency sonars are from Schlundt et al.(2000, 2006) and Finneran et al. (2005). These studies point to an energy flux density level of 195 dB re 1μPa 2 -s as the most appropriate predictor for onset-TTS in dolphins and belugas from a single, continuousexposure in the mid-frequency range. This finding is supported by the recommendations of a panel ofscientific experts formed to study the effects of sound on marine mammals (Southall et al., 2007).Research by Kastak et al. (1999a; 2005) provided estimates of the average SEL (EFD level) for onset-TTS for a harbor seal, sea lion, and Northern Elephant seal. Although the duration for exposure sessionsduration is well beyond those typically used with tactical sonars, the frequency ranges are similar (2.5kHz to 3.5 kHz). This data provides good estimates for the onset of TTS in pinnipeds since theresearchers tested different combinations of SPL and exposure duration, and plotted the growth of TTSwith an increasing energy exposure level. Of the three pinniped groups studied by Kastak et al., harborseals are the most representative of other pinnipeds likely to be present in the Study Area. The onset-TTSnumber, provided by Kastak et al. for harbor seals, is 183 dB re 1 Pa 2 -s.In contrast to TTS data, PTS data do not exist and are unlikely to be obtained for marine mammals.Differences in auditory structures and the way that sound propagates and interacts with tissues preventterrestrial mammal PTS thresholds from being directly applied to marine mammals; however, the innerears of marine mammals are analogous to those of terrestrial mammals. Experiments with marinemammals have revealed similarities between marine and terrestrial mammals with respect to features suchas TTS, age-related hearing loss, ototoxic drug-induced hearing loss, masking, and frequency selectivity.Therefore, in the absence of marine mammal PTS data, onset-PTS exposure levels may be estimated frommarine mammal TTS data and PTS/TTS relationships observed in terrestrial mammals. This involves:Estimating the largest amount of TTS that may be induced without PTS. Exposures causing a TSgreater than this value are assumed to cause PTS.Estimating the additional exposure, above the onset-TTS exposure, necessary to reach the maximumallowable amount of TTS (assumed here to indicate PTS). This requires estimating the growth rate ofTTS – how much additional TTS is produced by an increase in exposure level.A variety of terrestrial mammal data sources indicate that TSs up to 40 to 50 dB may be induced withoutPTS, and that 40 dB is a reasonable upper limit for TS to prevent PTS (Ward et al., 1958, 1959, 1960;Miller et al., 1963; Kryter et al., 1966). A conservative assumption is that continuous-type exposuresproducing TSs of 40 dB or more always result in some amount of PTS.3-195 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsThe TTS growth rate as a function of exposure EL is nonlinear; the growth rate at small amounts of TTSis less than the growth rate at larger amounts of TTS. In other words, the curve relating TTS and EL is nota straight line but a curve that becomes steeper as EL and TTS increase. This means that the relativelysmall amounts of TTS produced in marine mammal studies limit the applicability of these data to estimatethe TTS growth rate — since the amounts of TTS are generally small the TTS growth rate estimateswould likely be too low. Fortunately, data exist for the growth of TTS in terrestrial mammals at higheramounts of TTS. Data from Ward et al. (1958, 1959) reveal a linear relationship between TTS andexposure EL with growth rates of 1.5 to 1.6 dB TTS per dB increase in EL. Since there is a 34 dB TSdifference between onset-TTS (6 dB) and onset-PTS (40 dB), the additional exposure above onset-TTSthat is required to reach PTS would be 34 dB divided by 1.6 dB, or approximately 20 dB. Therefore,exposures with ELs 20 dB above those producing TTS may be assumed to produce a PTS. For an onset-TTS exposure with EL = 195 dB re 1 μPa 2 -s, the estimate for onset-PTS for cetaceans would be 215 dB re1 μPa 2 -s. The estimate for onset-PTS threshold for harbor seals would be 203 dB re 1 Pa 2 -s. Thisextrapolation process and the resulting TTS prediction is identical to that recently proposed by a panel ofscientific experts formed to study the effects of sound on marine mammals (Southall et al., 2007). Themethod predicts larger (worse) effects than have actually been observed in tests on a bottlenose dolphin[Schlundt et al. (2006) reported a TTS of 23 dB (no PTS) in a bottlenose dolphin exposed to a 3 kHz tonewith an EL = 217 dB re 1 μPa 2 -s].Auditory TraumaAuditory trauma represents direct mechanical injury to hearing related structures, including tympanicmembrane rupture, disarticulation of the middle ear ossicles, and trauma to the inner ear structures such asthe organ of Corti and the associated hair cells. The potential for trauma is related to the frequency,duration, onset time and received sound pressure as well as the sensitivity of the animal to the soundfrequencies. Because of these interactions, the potential for auditory trauma will vary among species.Auditory trauma is always injurious, but could be temporary and not result in permanent hearing loss.Auditory trauma is always assumed to result in a stress response.Relatively little is known about auditory system trauma in marine mammals resulting from known soundexposure. A single study spatially and temporally correlated the occurrence of auditory system trauma inhumpback whales with the detonation of a 5,000 kg (11,023 lb) explosive (Ketten et al., 1993). The exactmagnitude of the exposure in this study cannot be determined and it is possible that the trauma wascaused by the shock wave produced by the explosion (which would not be generated by a sonar). Thereare no known occurrences of direct auditory trauma in marine mammals exposed to tactical sonars.Non-Auditory System ResponsePotential impacts to tissues other than those related to the auditory system are assessed by considering thecharacteristics of the sound (e.g., amplitude, frequency, duration) and the known or estimated responsecharacteristics of non-auditory tissues. Some of these assessments can be numerically based (e.g.,exposure required for rectified diffusion). Others will be necessarily qualitative, due to lack ofinformation on the mechanical properties of the tissues and their function. Each of the potential responsesmay or may not result in a stress response. Further information on non-auditory system responses (suchas direct and in-direct tissue effects) as it relates to the impulsive characteristics of sound will bediscussed in section 3.7.3.2 under Potential Impacts from Exposure to Underwater Detonations.Direct Tissue EffectsDirect tissue responses to sound stimulation may range from tissue trauma (injury) to mechanicalvibration with no resulting injury. Any tissue injury would produce a stress response whereas noninjuriousstimulation may or may not.3-196 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsResonance is a phenomenon that exists when an object is vibrated at a frequency near its naturalfrequency of vibration, or the particular frequency at which the object vibrates most readily. The size andgeometry of an air cavity determine the frequency at which the cavity will resonate. Displacement of thecavity boundaries during resonance has been suggested as a cause of injury. Large displacements have thepotential to tear tissues that surround the air space (e.g., lung tissue).Understanding resonant frequencies and the susceptibility of marine mammal air cavities to resonance isimportant in determining whether certain sonars have the potential to affect different cavities in differentspecies. In 2002, NMFS convened a panel of government and private scientists to address this issue(NOAA, 2002). They modeled and evaluated the likelihood that Navy mid-frequency sonars causedresonance effects in beaked whales that eventually led to their stranding (DoC and DON, 2001). Theconclusions of that group were that resonance in air-filled structures was not likely to have caused theBahamas stranding (NOAA, 2002). The frequencies at which resonance was predicted to occur werebelow the frequencies utilized by the sonar systems employed. Furthermore, air cavity vibrations, even atresonant frequencies, were not considered to be of sufficient amplitude to cause tissue damage, evenunder the worst-case scenario in which air volumes would be undamped by surrounding tissues and theamplitude of the resonant response would be maximal. These same conclusions would apply to otheractions involving mid-frequency tactical sonar.Indirect Tissue EffectsBased upon the amplitude, frequency, and duration of the sound, it must be assessed whether exposure issufficient to indirectly affect tissues. For example, one suggested (indirect) cause of injury to marinemammals is rectified diffusion (Crum and Mao, 1996), the process of increasing the size of a bubble byexposing it to a sound field. Under this hypothesis, one of three things could happen: (1) bubbles grow tothe extent that tissue hemorrhage (injury) occurs; (2) bubbles develop to the extent that a complementimmune response is triggered or the nervous tissue is subjected to enough localized pressure that pain ordysfunction occurs (a stress response without injury); or (3) the bubbles are cleared by the lung withoutnegative consequence to the animal. The probability of rectified diffusion, or any other indirect tissueeffect, will necessarily be based upon what is known about the specific process involved.Rectified diffusion is facilitated if the environment in which the ensonified bubbles exist is supersaturatedwith gas. Repetitive diving by marine mammals can cause the blood and some tissues to accumulate gasto a greater degree than is supported by the surrounding environmental pressure (Ridgway and Howard,1979). The dive patterns of some marine mammals (for example, beaked whales) are theoreticallypredicted to induce greater supersaturation (Houser et al., 2001b). If rectified diffusion were possible inmarine mammals exposed to high-level sound, conditions of tissue supersaturation could theoreticallyspeed the rate and increase the size of bubble growth. Subsequent effects due to tissue trauma and emboliwould presumably mirror those observed in humans suffering from decompression sickness (DCS).It is unlikely that the short duration of sonar pings would be long enough to drive bubble growth to anysubstantial size, if such a phenomenon occurs. However, an alternative but related hypothesis has alsobeen suggested: stable microbubbles could be destabilized by high-level sound exposures such thatbubble growth then occurs through static diffusion of gas out of the tissues. In such a scenario, the marinemammal would need to be in a gas-supersaturated state for a long enough period of time for bubbles tobecome of a problematic size.Recent research with ex vivo supersaturated tissues suggested that sound exposures of approximately 215dB re 1 Pa would be required before microbubbles became destabilized and grew (Crum et al. 2005).Assuming spherical spreading loss and a nominal sonar source level of 235 dB re 1 Pa, a whale wouldneed to be within 10 m (33 ft) of the sonar dome to be exposed to such sound levels. Furthermore, tissueswere supersaturated by exposing them to pressures of 400 to 700 kPa for periods of hours and then3-197 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsreleasing them to ambient pressures. Assuming the equilibration of gases with the tissues occurred whenthe tissues were exposed to the high pressures, levels of supersaturation in the tissues could have been ashigh as 400 to 700 percent. These levels of tissue supersaturation are substantially higher than modelpredictions for marine mammals (Houser et al., 2001b). It is improbable that this mechanism isresponsible for stranding events or traumas associated with beaked whale strandings. Both the degree ofsupersaturation and exposure levels observed to cause microbubble destabilization are unlikely to occur,either alone or in concert.Yet another hypothesis has speculated that rapid ascent to the surface following exposure to a startlingsound might produce tissue gas saturation sufficient for the evolution of nitrogen bubbles (Jepson et al.,2003; Fernandez et al., 2005). This is accounted for in the conceptual framework via a feedback pathfrom the behavioral changes of “diving” and “avoidance” to the “indirect tissue response” block. In thisscenario, the rate of ascent would need to be sufficiently rapid to compromise behavioral or physiologicalprotections against nitrogen bubble formation. Recent modeling suggests that unrealistically rapid rates ofascent from normal dive behaviors are unlikely to result in supersaturation to the extent that bubbleformation would be expected in beaked whales (Zimmer et al., 2007). Recently, Tyack et al. (2006)suggested that emboli observed in animals exposed to mid-frequency range sonar (Jepson et al., 2003;Fernandez et al., 2005) could stem instead from a behavioral response that involves repeated divesshallower than the depth of lung collapse. Given that nitrogen gas accumulation is a passive process (i.e.nitrogen is metabolically inert), a bottlenose dolphin was trained to repetitively dive a profile predicted toelevate nitrogen saturation to the point that nitrogen bubble formation was predicted to occur. However,inspection of the vascular system of the dolphin via ultrasound did not demonstrate the formation of evenasymptomatic nitrogen gas bubbles (Houser et al., 2007).There is considerable disagreement among scientists as to the likelihood of this phenomenon (Piantadosiand Thalmann, 2004; Evans and Miller, 2003). Although it has been argued that traumas from recentbeaked whale strandings are consistent with gas emboli and bubble-induced tissue separations (Jepson etal., 2003; Fernandez et al., 2005), nitrogen bubble formation as the cause of the traumas has not beenverified. The presence of bubbles postmortem, particularly after decompression, is not necessarilyindicative of bubble pathology. Prior experimental work has demonstrated the post-mortem presence ofbubbles following decompression in laboratory animals can occur as a result of invasive investigativeprocedures (Stock et al., 1980).Additionally, the fat embolic syndrome identified by Fernández et al. (2005) is the first of its kind. Thepathogenesis of fat emboli formation is as yet undetermined and remains largely unstudied, and it wouldtherefore be inappropriate to causally link it to nitrogen bubble formation. Because evidence of nitrogenbubble formation following a rapid ascent by beaked whales is arguable and requires furtherinvestigation, this EIS/OEIS makes no assumptions about it being the causative mechanism in beakedwhale strandings associated with sonar operations. No similar findings to those found in beaked whalesstranding coincident with sonar activity have been reported in other stranded animals following knownexposure to sonar operations. By extension, no marine mammals addressed in this EIS/OEIS are givendifferential treatment due to the possibility for acoustically mediated bubble growth.No Tissue EffectsThe received sound is insufficient to cause either direct (mechanical) or indirect effects to tissues. Nostress response occurs.The Stress ResponseThe acoustic source is considered a potential stressor if, by its action on the animal, via auditory ornonauditory means, it may produce a stress response in the animal. The term “stress” has taken on an3-198 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsambiguous meaning in the scientific literature, but with respect to Figure 3.7-3 and the later discussions ofallostasis and allostatic loading, the stress response will refer to an increase in energetic expenditure thatresults from exposure to the stressor and which is predominantly characterized by either the stimulation ofthe sympathetic nervous system (SNS) or the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis (Reeder andKramer, 2005), or through oxidative stress, as occurs in noise-induced hearing loss (Henderson et al.,2006). The SNS response to a stressor is immediate and acute and is characterized by the release of thecatecholamine neurohormones norepinephrine and epinephrine (i.e., adrenaline). These hormonesproduce elevations in the heart and respiration rate, increase awareness, and increase the availability ofglucose and lipids for energy. The HPA response is ultimately defined by increases in the secretion of theglucocorticoid steroid hormones, (e.g. cortisol, aldosterone).. The amount of increase in circulatingglucocorticoids above baseline may be an indicator of the overall severity of a stress response (Hennessyet al., 1979). Each component of the stress response is variable in time; e.g., adrenalines are releasednearly immediately and are used or cleared by the system quickly, whereas cortisol levels may take longperiods of time to return to baseline.The presence and magnitude of a stress response in an animal depends on a number of factors. Theseinclude the animal’s life history stage (e.g., neonate, juvenile, and adult), the environmental conditions,reproductive or developmental state, and experience with the stressor. Not only will these factors besubject to individual variation, but they will also vary within an individual over time. Prior experiencewith a stressor may be of particular importance as repeated experience with a stressor may dull the stressresponse via acclimation (St. Aubin and Dierauf, 2001). In considering potential stress responses ofmarine mammals to acoustic stressors, each of these should be considered. For example, is the acousticstressor in an area where animals engage in breeding activity? Are animals in the region resident andlikely to have experience with the stressor (i.e., repeated exposures)? Is the region a foraging ground orare the animals passing through as transients? What is the ratio of young (naïve) to old (experienced)animals in the population? It is unlikely that all such questions can be answered from empirical data;however, they should be addressed in any qualitative assessment of a potential stress response as based onthe available literature.Marine mammals naturally experience stressors within their environment and as part of their life histories.Changing weather and ocean conditions, exposure to diseases and naturally occurring toxins, lack of preyavailability, social interactions with conspecifics, and interactions with predators all contribute to thestress a marine mammal experiences. In some cases, naturally occurring stressors can have profoundimpacts on marine mammals; for example, chronic stress, as observed in stranded animals with long-termdebilitating conditions (e.g., disease), has been demonstrated to result in an increased size of the adrenalglands and an increase in the number of epinephrine-producing cells (Clark et al., 2006). Anthropogenicactivities have the potential to provide additional stressors above and beyond those that occur naturally.Potential stressors resulting from anthropogenic activities must be considered not only as to their directimpact on the animal but also as to their cumulative impact with environmental stressors alreadyexperienced by the animal.Studies on the stress response of odontocete cetaceans to acute acoustic stimuli were previously discussedThomas et al., 1990a; Miksis et al., 2001; Romano et al., 2004). Other types of stressors include thepresence of vessels, fishery interactions, acts of pursuit and capture, the act of stranding, and pollution. Incontrast to the limited amount of work performed on stress responses resulting from sound exposure, aconsiderably larger body of work exists on stress responses associated with pursuit, capture, handling andstranding. Pursuit, capture and short-term holding of belugas has been observed to result in a decrease inthyroid hormones (St. Aubin and Geraci, 1988) and increases in epinephrine (St. Aubin and Dierauf,2001). In dolphins, the trend is more complicated with the duration of the handling time potentiallycontributing to the magnitude of the stress response (St. Aubin et al., 1996; Ortiz and Worthy, 2000; St.3-199 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsAubin, 2002). Elephant seals demonstrate an acute cortisol response to handling, but do not demonstrate achronic response; on the contrary, adult females demonstrate a reduction in the adrenocortical responsefollowing repetitive chemical immobilization (Engelhard et al., 2002). With respect to anthropogenicsound as a stressor, the current limited body of knowledge will require extrapolation from species forwhich information exists to those for which no information exists.The stress response may or may not result in a behavioral change, depending on the characteristics of theexposed animal. However, provided a stress response occurs, we assume that some contribution is madeto the animal’s allostatic load. Allostasis is the ability of an animal to maintain stability through changeby adjusting its physiology in response to both predictable and unpredictable events (McEwen andWingfield, 2003). The same hormones associated with the stress response vary naturally throughout ananimal’s life, providing support for particular life history events (e.g., pregnancy) and predictableenvironmental conditions (e.g., seasonal changes). The allostatic load is the cumulative cost of allostasisincurred by an animal and is generally characterized with respect to an animal’s energetic expenditure.Perturbations to an animal that may occur with the presence of a stressor, either biological (e.g., predator)or anthropogenic (e.g., construction), can contribute to the allostatic load (Wingfield, 2003). Additionalcosts are cumulative and additions to the allostatic load over time may contribute to reductions in theprobability of achieving ultimate life history functions (e.g., survival, maturation, reproductive effort andsuccess) by producing pathophysiological states. The contribution to the allostatic load from a stressorrequires estimating the magnitude and duration of the stress response, as well as any secondarycontributions that might result from a change in behavior.If the acoustic source does not produce tissue effects, is not perceived by the animal, or does not producea stress response by any other means, Figure 3.7-3 assumes that the exposure does not contribute to theallostatic load. Additionally, without a stress response or auditory masking, it is assumed that there can beno behavioral change. Conversely, any immediate effect of exposure that produces an injury (i.e., redboxes on the flow chart in Figure 3.7-3) is assumed to also produce a stress response and contribute to theallostatic load.Behavior BlockAcute stress responses may or may not cause a behavioral reaction. However, all changes in behavior areexpected to result from an acute stress response. This expectation is conservatively based on theassumption that some sort of physiological trigger must exist for an anthropogenic stimulus to alter abiologically significant behavior that is already being performed. The exception to this rule is the case ofmasking. The presence of a masking sound may not produce a stress response, but may interfere with theanimal’s ability to detect and discriminate biologically relevant signals. The inability to detect anddiscriminate biologically relevant signals hinders the potential for normal behavioral responses toauditory cues and is thus considered a behavioral change.Numerous behavioral changes can occur as a result of stress response, and Figure 3.7-3 lists only thosethat might be considered the most common types of response for a marine animal. For each potentialbehavioral change, the magnitude in the change and the severity of the response needs to be estimated.Certain conditions, such as a flight response might have a probability of resulting in injury. For example,a flight response, if significant enough, could produce a stranding event. Under the MMPA, such an eventprecipitated by anthropogenic noise would be considered a Level A harassment. Each altered behaviormay also have the potential to disrupt biologically significant events (e.g., breeding or nursing) and mayneed to be qualified as Level B harassment. All behavioral disruptions have the potential to contribute tothe allostatic load. This secondary potential is signified by the feedback from the collective behaviors toallostatic loading (physiology block).3-200 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsThe response of a marine mammal to an anthropogenic sound source will depend on the frequencycontent, duration, temporal pattern and amplitude of the sound as well as the animal’s prior experiencewith the sound and the context in which the sound is encountered (i.e., what the animal is doing at thetime of the exposure). The direction of the responses can vary, with some changes resulting in eitherincreases or decreases from baseline (e.g., decreased dive times and increased respiration rate). Responsescan also overlap; for example, an increased respiration rate is likely to be coupled to a flight response.Differential responses between and within species are expected since hearing ranges vary across speciesand the behavioral ecology of individual species is unlikely to completely overlap.A review of marine mammal responses to anthropogenic sound was first conducted by Richardson andothers in 1995. A more recent review (Nowacek et al., 2007) addresses studies conducted since 1995 andfocuses on observations where the received sound level of the exposed marine mammal(s) was known orcould be estimated. The following sections provide a very brief overview of the state of knowledge ofbehavioral responses. The overviews focus on studies conducted since 2000 but are not meant to becomprehensive; rather, they provide an idea of the variability in behavioral responses that would beexpected given the differential sensitivities of marine mammal species to sound and the wide range ofpotential acoustic sources to which a marine mammal may be exposed. Estimates of the types ofbehavioral responses that could occur for a given sound exposure should be determined from the literaturethat is available for each species, or extrapolated from closely related species when no information exists.Flight Response – A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapidmovement away from the perceived location of a sound source. Relatively little information on flightresponses of marine mammals to anthropogenic signals exists, although observations of flight responsesto the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and Heithaus, 1996). Flight responses have beenspeculated as being a component of marine mammal strandings associated with sonar activities (Evansand England, 2001).Response to Predator – Evidence suggests that at least some marine mammals have the ability toacoustically identify potential predators. For example, harbor seals that reside in the coastal waters offBritish Columbia are frequently targeted by certain groups of killer whales, but not others. The sealsdiscriminate between the calls of threatening and non-threatening killer whales (Deecke et al., 2002), acapability that should increase survivorship while reducing the energy required for attending to andresponding to all killer whale calls. The occurrence of masking or hearing impairment provides a meansby which marine mammals may be prevented from responding to the acoustic cues produced by theirpredators. Whether or not this is a possibility depends on the duration of the masking/hearing impairmentand the likelihood of encountering a predator during the time that predator cues are impeded.Diving – Changes in dive behavior can vary widely. They may consist of increased or decreased divetimes and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive. Variationsin dive behavior may reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., foraging) or they maybe of little biological significance. Variations in dive behavior may also expose an animal to potentiallyharmful conditions (e.g., increasing the chance of ship-strike) or may serve as an avoidance response thatenhances survivorship. The impact of a variation in diving resulting from an acoustic exposure dependson what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the type and magnitude of the response.Nowacek et al. (2004) reported disruptions of dive behaviors in foraging North Atlantic right whaleswhen exposed to an alerting stimulus, an action, they noted, that could lead to an increased likelihood ofship strike. However, the whales did not respond to playbacks of either right whale social sounds orvessel noise, highlighting the importance of the sound characteristics in producing a behavioral reaction.Conversely, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins have been observed to dive for longer periods of time inareas where vessels were present and/or approaching (Ng and Leung, 2003). In both of these studies, the3-201 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsinfluence of the sound exposure cannot be decoupled from the physical presence of a surface vessel, thuscomplicating intepretations of the relative contribution of each stimulus to the response. Indeed, thepresence of surface vessels, their approach and speed of approach, seemed to be significant factors in theresponse of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng and Leung, 2003). Low frequency signals of theAcoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound source were not found to affect dive times ofhumpback whales in Hawaiian waters (Frankel and Clark, 2000) or to overtly affect elephant seal dives(Costa et al., 2003). They did, however, produce subtle effects that varied in direction and degree amongthe individual seals, illustrating the equivocal nature of behavioral effects and consequent difficulty indefining and predicting them.Due to past incidents of beaked whale strandings associated with sonar operations, feedback paths areprovided between avoidance and diving and indirect tissue effects. This feedback accounts for thehypothesis that variations in diving behavior and/or avoidance responses can possibly result in nitrogentissue supersaturation and nitrogen off-gassing, possibly to the point of deleterious vascular bubbleformation (Jepson et al., 2003). Although hypothetical, the potential process is being debated within thescientific community.Foraging - Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic soundexposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearanceof secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive behavior. Noise fromseismic surveys was not found to impact the feeding behavior in western gray whales off the coast ofRussia (Yazvenko et al., 2007) and sperm whales engaged in foraging dives did not abandon dives whenexposed to distant signatures of seismic airguns (Madsen et al., 2006). Balaenopterid whales exposed tomoderate low-frequency signals similar to the ATOC sound source demonstrated no variation in foragingactivity (Croll et al., 2001), whereas five out of six North Atlantic right whales exposed to an acousticalarm interrupted their foraging dives (Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the received sound pressure levelat the animals was similar in the latter two studies, the frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of signalpresentation were different. These factors, as well as differences in species sensitivity, are likelycontributing factors to the differential response. A determination of whether foraging disruptions incurfitness consequences will require information on or estimates of the energetic requirements of theindividuals and the relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life historystage of the animal.Breathing – Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and variations in respirationrate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, suchas a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may berepresentative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Mean exhalation rates of gray whales at rest andwhile diving were found to be unaffected by seismic surveys conducted adjacent to the whale feedinggrounds (Gailey et al., 2007). Studies with captive harbor porpoises showed increased respiration ratesupon introduction of acoustic alarms (Kastelein et al., 2001; Kastelein et al., 2006a) and emissions forunderwater data transmission (Kastelein et al., 2005). However, exposure of the same acoustic alarm to astriped dolphin under the same conditions did not elicit a response (Kastelein et al., 2006a), againhighlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noisewhen determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure.Social relationships - Social interactions between mammals can be affected by noise via the disruption ofcommunication signals or by the displacement of individuals. Disruption of social relationships thereforedepends on the disruption of other behaviors (e.g., caused avoidance, masking, etc.) and no specificoverview is provided here. However, social disruptions must be considered in context of the relationshipsthat are affected. Long-term disruptions of mother/calf pairs or mating displays have the potential toaffect the growth and survival or reproductive effort/success of individuals, respectively.3-202 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsVocalizations - Vocal changes in response to anthropogenic noise can occur across the repertoire of soundproduction modes used by marine mammals, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling,and singing. Changes may result in response to a need to compete with an increase in background noise ormay reflect an increased vigilance or startle response. For example, in the presence of low-frequencyactive sonar, humpback whales have been observed to increase the length of their ”songs” (Miller et al.,2000; Fristrup et al., 2003), possibly due to the overlap in frequencies between the whale song and thelow-frequency active sonar. A similar compensatory effect for the presence of low frequency vessel noisehas been suggested for right whales; right whales have been observed to shift the frequency content oftheir calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic noise (Parks etal., 2007). Killer whales off the northwestern coast of the United States have been observed to increasethe duration of primary calls once a threshold in observing vessel density (e.g., whale watching) wasreached, which has been suggested as a response to increased masking noise produced by the vessels(Foote et al., 2004). In contrast, both sperm and pilot whales potentially ceased sound production duringthe Heard Island feasibility test (Bowles et al., 1994), although it cannot be absolutely determinedwhether the inability to acoustically detect the animals was due to the cessation of sound production orthe displacement of animals from the area.Avoidance - Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area as a result of the presence of asound. It is qualitatively different from the flight response in its magnitude (i.e., directed movement, rateof travel, etc.). Oftentimes avoidance is temporary, and animals return to the area once the noise hasceased. Longer term displacement is possible, however, which can lead to changes in abundance ordistribution patterns of the species in the affected region if they do not become acclimated to the presenceof the sound (Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). Acute avoidanceresponses have been observed in captive porpoises and pinnipeds exposed to a number of different soundsources (Kastelein et al., 2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et al., 2006a; Kastelein et al., 2006b).Short term avoidance of seismic surveys, low frequency emissions, and acoustic deterrants has also beennoted in wild populations of odontocetes (Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; 1998; Stone et al., 2000;Morton and Symonds, 2002) and to some extent in mysticetes (Gailey et al., 2007), while longer term orrepetitive/chronic displacement for some dolpin groups and for manatees has been suggested to be due tothe presence of chronic vessel noise (Haviland-Howell et al., 2007; Miksis-Olds et al., 2007).Orientation - A shift in an animal’s resting state or an attentional change via an orienting responserepresent behaviors that would be considered mild disruptions if occurring alone, and thus are placed atthe bottom of the framework behavior list. As previously mentioned, the responses may co-occur withother behaviors; for instance, an animal may initially orient toward a sound source, and then move awayfrom it. Thus, any orienting response should be considered in context of other reactions that may occur.Life FunctionProximate life history functions are the functions that the animal is engaged in at the time of acousticexposure. The disruption of these functions, and the magnitude of the disruption, is something that mustbe considered in determining how the ultimate life history functions are affected. Consideration of themagnitude of the effect to each of the proximate life history functions is dependent upon the life stage ofthe animal. For example, an animal on a breeding ground which is sexually immature will sufferrelatively little consequence to disruption of breeding behavior when compared to an actively displayingadult of prime reproductive age.The ultimate life functions are those that enable an animal to contribute to the population (or stock, orspecies, etc.) and which related to the animal’s fitness. The impact to ultimate life functions will dependon the nature and magnitude of the perturbation to proximate life history functions. Depending on theseverity of the response to the stressor, acute perturbations may have nominal to profound impacts on3-203 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsultimate life functions. For example, unit-level use of sonar by a vessel transiting through an area that isutilized for foraging, but not for breeding, may disrupt feeding by exposed animals for a brief period oftime. Because of the brevity of the perturbation, the impact to ultimate life functions may be negligible.By contrast, weekly training over a period of years may have a more substantial impact because thestressor is chronic. Assessment of the magnitude of the stress response from the chronic perturbationwould require an understanding of how and whether animals acclimate to a specific, repeated stressor andwhether chronic elevations in the stress response (e.g., cortisol levels) produce fitness deficits.The proximate life functions are loosely ordered in decreasing severity of impact. Mortality (survival) hasan immediate effect, in that no future reproductive success is feasible and there is no further addition tothe population resulting from reproduction. Severe injuries may also lead to reduced survivorship(longevity) and prolonged alterations in behavior. The latter may further affect an animal’s overallreproductive success and reproductive effort. Disruptions of breeding have an immediate impact onreproductive effort and may impact reproductive success. The magnitude of the effect will depend on theduration of the disruption and the type of behavior change that was provoked. Disruptions to feeding andmigration can affect all of the ultimate life functions; however, the impacts to reproductive effort andsuccess are not likely to be as severe or immediate as those incurred by mortality and breedingdisruptions.3.7.3.2 Background Information for Explosive Ordnance AnalysisSome of the Navy’s training exercises include the underwater detonation of explosives. When anexplosive detonates, a physical shock front rapidly compresses the explosive material. As this frontpasses through the explosive, it triggers a chemical reaction, turning the solid of the explosive intogaseous products and liberating a large amount of energy. An accompanying pressure wave, called a“shock wave” is also produced which then passes into the surrounding medium. Noise associated withthe blast is also transmitted into the surrounding medium. The shock wave (impulsive characteristic ofsound) and blast noise (acoustic characteristic of sound) are of the most concern to marine animals.Beyond a short distance from the blast (generally 3-10 diameters of the explosive charge), thermal anddirect detonation effects from the explosion are significantly reduced or eliminated (Viada et al., 2008).The main sources of impact outside the immediate vicinity of the explosion are the shock wave andexpanding gaseous reaction products. Generally, the original shock wave is the primary cause of harm toaquatic life. The expanding gases, if they break into the water column, can set up a pulsating bubblewhose recurring pressure waves also may contribute significantly to damage (Viada et al., 2008).The effects of an underwater explosion on marine mammals and sea turtles, are dependent on severalfactors, including the size, type, and depth of both the animal and the explosive charge; the depth of thewater column; and the standoff distance between the explosive charge and the animal, as well as thesound propagation properties of the environment. Impacts to marine species are a result of physiologicalresponses (generally the destruction of tissues at air-fluid interfaces) to both the type and strength of theacoustic signature and shock wave generated by an underwater explosion. Behavioral impacts are alsoexpected, though the type and severity of these effects are more difficult to define due to limited studiesaddressing the behavioral effects of explosives on marine mammals and other aquatic species. Potentialeffects can range from brief acoustic effects (such as behavioral disturbance), tactile perception, physicaldiscomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, to death of the animal (Yelvertonet al., 1973; O’Keefe and Young, 1984; DoN, 2001). Non-lethal injury includes slight injury to internalorgans and the auditory system; however, delayed lethality may be a result of individual or cumulativesublethal injuries (DoN, 2001). Immediate lethal injury would be a result of massive combined trauma tointernal organs as a direct result of close proximity to the point of detonation (DoN, 2001). In thefollowing subsections, potential effects due to the exposure to underwater detonations is discussed inmore detail.3-204 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISPotential Impacts from Exposure to Underwater DetonationsChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsDirect Tissue EffectsDirect tissue responses to impulsive sound stimulation may range from tissue trauma (injury) tomechanical vibration or compression with no resulting injury. Any tissue injury would produce a stressresponse whereas a non-injurious stimulation may or may not.Generally, blast injury, defined as biophysical and pathophysiological events and clinical syndromes thatoccur when a living body is exposed to a blast of any origin, comprises two categories: primary blastinjury (PBI) and cavitation (Costanzo and Gordon, 1989; Office of the Surgeon General, 1991; DoN,2001, 2007c). Primary blast injury (PBI) occurs when the shock wave strikes and compresses the body,and energy from the blast is transferred directly from the transmitting medium (water) to the bodysurface. Cavitation occurs when compression waves generated by an underwater explosion propagate tothe surface and are reflected back through the water column as rarefraction waves. Subsequentrarefraction waves create a state of tension in the water column, causing cavitation (defined as theformation of partial vacuums in a liquid by high intensity sound waves) within a bounded area called thecavitation region (Viada et al., 2008). In addition to these two avenues for impulsive effects, direct tissuedamage can occur if the animal is close enough to the explosive source to be struck by the fragments orcasing of the actual explosive device. Given current mitigation measures associated with underwaterdetonations, this scenario is highly unlikely.Injury resulting from a shock wave takes place at boundaries between tissues of different density.Different velocities are imparted to tissue of different densities, and this can lead to their physicaldisruption. Blast effects are greatest at gas-liquid interfaces (Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing organs,particularly the lungs, gastrointestinal tract, and the auditory system are susceptible in marine animals(Goertner, 1982; Hill, 1978; Yelverton et al., 1973). The direct effects of cavitation on marine mammalsand sea turtles is unknown, though it is assumed that cavitation created by detonation of a small chargecould directly annoy or injure (primarily the auditory system and lungs) or increase the severity of PBIinjuries in the cavitation region (DoN, 2001; 2007c). Non-lethal injuries include minor injuries to theauditory system and certain internal organs.Because the ears are the most sensitive to pressure, they are the organs most sensitive to injury (Ketten,2000). Sound related damage associated with the blast noise can be theoretically distinct from injury fromthe shock wave, particularly farther from the explosion. Sound related trauma can be lethal or sub-lethal.Lethal impacts are those that result in immediate death or serious debilitation in or near an intense sourceand are not, technically, pure acoustic trauma (Ketten, 1995). Sub-lethal impacts include hearing loss,which is caused by exposure to perceptible sounds. Severe damage, from the shock wave, to the ears caninclude rupture of the tympanic membrane (or tympanum in the case of sea turtles), facture of theossicles, damage to the cochlea, hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the middle ear (NMFS,2008b). Moderate injury implies partial hearing loss due to tympanic membrane rupture and blood in themiddle ear. Permanent hearing loss also can occur when the hair cells are damaged by one very loudevent, as well as prolonged exposure to noise. The level of impact from blasts depends on both ananimal’s location and, at outer zones, on its sensitivity to the residual noise (Ketten, 1995).In addition to injuries to the ear, other sensitive organs are also affected by the shock wave fromunderwater detonations. For example, lung injuries, including laceration and rupture of the alveoli andblood vessels, can lead to hemorrhage, creation of air embolisms, and breathing difficulties. In addition,gas-containing organs including the nasal sacs, larynx, pharynx, trachea, and lungs may be damaged bycompression/expansion caused by the oscillations of the blast gas bubble (Reidenberg and Laitman,2003). The gastrointestinal tract is also susceptible to trauma from underwater explosions. Intestinal3-205 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalswalls can bruise or rupture, with subsequent hemorrhage and escape of the gut contents into the bodycavity. Less severe gastrointestinal tract injuries include contusions, slight hemorrhaging, and petichia(Yelverton et al., 1973). In underwater blast studies using cadaver marine mammals, Ketten et al. (2003)and Reidenberg and Laitman (2003), injury was consistent with what would be expected in live animalsand included apparent hemorrhages at the blubber-muscle interface and in gas-containing organs and thegastrointestinal tract; ruptures of the liver and spleen; and contusions of the kidney. Ketten et al. (2003)noted distinct injury patterns to the blubber, melon, and jaw fats of cadaver bottlenose dolphins due to thedifferences in density, and hence sound speed velocity, of these tissues from adjoining tissues.Compression also appears to cause air to enter tissues adjacent to air spaces in dead marine mammalsexposed to explosives (Reidenberg and Laitman, 2003). Slight injury to any of these organs would beconsidered recoverable and would not ultimately be debilitating to the individual.Exposures of animals to high peak pressure shock waves can result in injuries including concussive braindamage; cranial, skeletal, or shell fractures; hemorrhage; or massive inner ear trauma (Ketten, 1995).Depending on the size of the animal (with small animals being more susceptible), extremely high shockwave pressure impulses may or may not be lethally injurious to internal organs. However, overall systemshock and significant external tissue damage, as well as severe localized damage to the skeletal system,would be expected from such a shock wave. These injuries, if not themselves fatal, would probably putthe animal at increased risk of predation, secondary infection, or disease (DoN, 2001; 2007c).Indirect Tissue EffectsIndirect tissue effects may also be possible from underwater detonations, by means of the impulsive shockwave or its associated acoustic energy. For example, hemorrhage of the gastrointestinal tract can becaused by the direct effect of the shock wave or indirectly by the excitation of radial oscillations of smallgas bubbles normally present in the intestines (Richmond et al., 1973 and Yelverton et al., 1973).A plausible mechanism for indirect tissue effects may be from behaviorally mediated bubble growth.Although this hypothesis was originally proposed in relation to the effects of sonar on marine mammals,the general pathway could also be applicable to underwater detonations. By this hypothesis, if theacoustic energy or impulsive force of an underwater detonation was great enough to startle marinemammals, it could trigger their flight response and cause them to react by changing their dive behavior(i.e. rapid ascent, staying at the surface or at depth longer to avoid exposure). Jepson et al. (2003)proposed that bubble formation might result from behavioral changes to normal dive profiles (such asaccelerated ascent rate), causing excessive nitrogen supersaturation in the tissues (as occurs indecompression sickness). Because evidence of nitrogen bubble formation following a rapid ascent bymarine mammals is arguable and requires further investigation, this EIS/OEIS makes no assumptionsabout it being a causative mechanism.An alternative, but related hypothesis has also been suggested: stable micro-bubbles could becomedestabilized, or bubbles could be formed via cavitation following high level sound exposures, whichcould originate from impulsive sources. Under such a condition, bubble growth could then occur throughstatic diffusion of gas out of the tissues. In this scenario, the marine mammal would need to be in a gassupersaturatedstate for a long period of time for bubbles to become of a problematic size. While it isunlikely that the short duration of sonar pings or impulsive sounds from explosive sources would be longenough to drive bubble growth to any substantial size, such a phenomenon is within the realm ofpossibility. For a further discussion of these mechanisms refer back to the Indirect Effects section of theacoustic analysis.3-206 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsBehavioral EffectsThere have been few studies addressing the behavioral effect of explosives on marine mammals. Whilerecognizing that the nature of shock waves produced by high explosives is different from that producedby airguns or MFAS, these sounds serve as the best proxy for assessing the effects of underwaterdetonations on marine life. Despite the difference in the character of the sound source, it is anticipatedthat the same general behavioral responses would result from explosive detonations. As a result, for afurther discussion of the behavioral effects of underwater detonations on marine species, refer back to theBehavior Block section of the acoustic analysis.Thresholds and Criteria for Impulsive SoundCriteria and thresholds for estimating the exposures from a single explosive activity on marine mammalswere established for the Seawolf Submarine Shock Test Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)(“Seawolf”) and subsequently used in the USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81) Ship Shock FEIS(“Churchill”) (DoN, 1998 and 2001). NMFS adopted these criteria and thresholds in its final rule onunintentional taking of marine animals occurring incidental to the shock testing (NMFS, 2001a). Sincethe ship-shock events involve only one large explosive at a time, additional assumptions were made toextend the approach to cover multiple explosions for FIREX (with IMPASS) and BOMBEX. In addition,this section reflects a revised acoustic criterion for small underwater explosions (i.e., 23 lbs per squareinch [psi] instead of previous acoustic criteria of 12 psi for peak pressure over all exposures), which isbased on the final rule issued to the Air Force by NMFS (NMFS, 2005c). As was the case for Seawolfand Churchill, in the absence of specifically developed criteria, criteria and thresholds for impact onprotected marine mammals are used for protected sea turtles. Figure 3.7-4 depicts the acoustic impactframework used in this assessment.Thresholds and Criteria for Injurious Physiological EffectsSingle ExplosionFor injury, the Navy uses dual criteria: eardrum rupture (i.e., tympanic-membrane [TM] rupture) andonset of slight lung injury. These criteria are considered indicative of the onset of injury. The thresholdfor TM rupture corresponds to a 50 percent rate of rupture (i.e., 50% of animals exposed to the level areexpected to suffer TM rupture); this is stated in terms of an Energy Flux Density Level (EL) value of 1.17inch pounds per square inch (in-lbs/in 2 ) (about 205 dB referenced to one microPascal squared second [dBre one Pa 2 -sec]). This recognizes that TM rupture is not necessarily a serious or life-threatening injury,but is a useful index of possible injury that is well correlated with measures of permanent hearingimpairment (Ketten [1998] indicates a 30 percent incidence of PTS at the same threshold).The threshold for onset of slight lung injury is calculated for a small animal (a dolphin calf weighing26.9 lbs), and is given in terms of the “Goertner modified positive impulse,” indexed to 13 psimillisecond(msec) (DoN, 2001). This threshold is conservative since the positive impulse needed tocause injury is proportional to animal mass and, therefore, larger animals require a higher impulse tocause the onset of injury. This analysis assumed the marine species populations were 100 percent smallanimals. The criterion with the largest potential exposure range (most conservative), either TM rupture(energy threshold) or onset of slight lung injury (peak pressure threshold), will be used in the analysis todetermine injurious physiological exposures.For mortality, the Navy uses the criterion corresponding to the onset of extensive lung injury. This isconservative in that it corresponds to a 1 percent chance of mortal injury, and yet any animal experiencingonset severe lung injury is counted as a lethal exposure. For small animals, the threshold is given in termsof the Goertner modified positive impulse, indexed to 30.5 psi-msec. Since the Goertner approachdepends on propagation, source/animal depths, and animal mass in a complex way, the actual impulse3-207 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsFigure 3.7-4Physiological and Behavioral Acoustic Effects Framework for Explosivesvalue corresponding to the 30.5 psi-msec index is a complicated calculation. To be conservative, theanalysis used the mass of a calf dolphin (at 26.9 lbs) for 100 percent of the populations.Multiple ExplosionsFor this analysis, the use of multiple explosions occurs during FIREX (with IMPASS) and the BOMBEXevents where the MK-82 and MK-83 bombs are used. Since FIREX and portions of BOMBEX requiremultiple explosions, the Churchill approach had to be extended to cover multiple sound events at thesame training site. For FIREX, the exercise is estimated to take up to 6 hours. For BOMBEX, the bombsare dropped roughly 3 minutes apart, so the exercise is approximately 12 minutes For multiple exposures,accumulated energy over the entire training time is the natural extension for energy thresholds sinceenergy accumulates with each subsequent shot (explosion); this is consistent with the treatment ofmultiple arrivals in Churchill. For positive impulse, it is consistent with Churchill to use the maximumvalue over all impulses received.Thresholds and Criteria for Non-Injurious Physiological EffectsThe Navy criterion for non-injurious physiological effects is TTS — a slight, recoverable loss of hearingsensitivity (DoN, 2001). For this assessment, there are dual thresholds for TTS, an energy threshold and apeak pressure threshold. The criterion with the largest potential exposure range (most conservative),either the energy threshold or peak pressure threshold, will be used in the analysis to determine noninjuriousphysiological (TTS) exposures.Single Explosion –TTS-Energy ThresholdThe first threshold is a 182 dB re 1 Pa 2 -sec maximum energy flux density level in any 1/3-octave band atfrequencies above 100 Hertz (Hz) for toothed whales/sea turtles and in any 1/3-octave band above 10 Hzfor baleen whales. For large explosives, as in the case of the Churchill FEIS, frequency range cutoffs at10 and 100 Hz produce different results in the impact range estimates. For small explosives (

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsessentially no difference in exposure ranges resulting from the 10 and 100 Hz frequency range cutoffs fortoothed whales/sea turtles or baleen whales.The TTS energy threshold for explosives is derived from the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center(SSC) pure-tone tests for TTS (Schlundt et al., 2000, Finneran and Schlundt, 2004). The pure-tonethreshold (192 decibels [dB] as the lowest value) is modified for explosives by (a) interpreting it as anenergy metric, (b) reducing it by 10 dB to account for the time constant of the mammal ear, and (c)measuring the energy in 1/3-octave bands, the natural filter band of the ear. The resulting threshold is 182dB re 1 Pa 2 -sec in any 1/3-octave band. The energy threshold usually dominates over peak pressurethreshold and is used in the analysis to determine potential non-injurious physiological (TTS) exposuresfor single explosion ordnance.Single Explosion –TTS-Peak Pressure ThresholdThe second threshold applies to all species and is stated in terms of peak pressure at 23 psi (about 225 dBreferenced to 1 micropascal [dB re 1 Pa]). This criterion was adopted for Precision Strike Weapons(PSW) Testing and Training by Eglin Air Force Base in the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS, 2005c). It isimportant to note that for small shots near the surface (such as in this analysis), the 23-psi peak pressurethreshold generally will produce longer exposure ranges than the 182-dB energy metric. Furthermore, itis not unusual for the TTS exposure range for the 23-psi pressure metric to actually exceed thedisturbance exposure range for the 177-dB energy metric.Multiple Explosions –TTSFor multiple explosions, accumulated energy over the entire training time is the natural extension forenergy thresholds since energy accumulates with each subsequent shot/detonation. This is consistent withthe energy argument in Churchill. For peak pressure, it is consistent with Churchill to use the maximumvalue over all impulses received.Thresholds and Criteria for Behavioral EffectsSingle ExplosionFor a single explosion, to be consistent with Churchill, TTS is the criterion for non-injurious physiologicalexposure. In other words, because behavioral disturbance for a single explosion is likely to be limited to ashort-lived startle reaction, use of the TTS criterion is considered sufficient protection and, therefore,behavioral effects are not considered for single explosions.Multiple ExplosionsFor this analysis, the use of multiple explosions occurs during FIREX (with IMPASS) and the BOMBEXevents where MK-82 and MK-83 bombs are used. Because multiple explosions would occur within adiscrete time period, a new acoustic criterion-behavioral disturbance is used to account for behavioraleffects significant enough to be judged as harassment, but occurring at lower noise levels than those thatmay cause TTS.The threshold is based on test results published in Schlundt et al. (2000), with derivation following theapproach of the Churchill FEIS for the energy-based TTS threshold. The original Schlundt et al. (2000)data and the report of Finneran and Schlundt (2004) are the basis for thresholds for behavioraldisturbance. As reported by Schlundt et al. (2000), instances of altered behavior generally began at lowerexposures than those causing TTS; however, there were many instances when subjects exhibited noaltered behavior at levels above the onset-TTS levels. Regardless of reactions at higher or lower levels, allinstances of altered behavior were included in the statistical summary.The behavioral disturbance (without TTS) threshold for tones is derived from the SSC tests, and is foundto be five dB below the threshold for TTS, or 177 dB re: 1 Pa 2 -sec maximum energy flux density level3-209 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsin any 1/3-octave band at frequencies above 100 Hz for toothed whales/sea turtles and in any 1/3-octaveband above 10 Hz for baleen whales. In shallower water, the behavioral disturbance exposure range canbe about twice the exposure range for TTS. However, in deeper water, the TTS pressure criteria (23 psi)exposure range can result in a longer exposure range than the behavioral disturbance criteria exposurerange. This is due to the fact that in a deep water environment, it is more likely that there is a direct pathfor the shockwave to propogate, which results in a larger peak pressure range. In shallow water, there isreflection, absorption, and cancellation of the shockwave propagation due to interactions with the bottom,sediment type, etc., which can limit the peak pressure range.Summary of Thresholds and Criteria for Impulsive SoundsTable 3.7-4 summarizes the effects, criteria, and thresholds used in the assessment for impulsive sounds.Non-injurious effects are determined by either the dual physiological criteria for single detonations or bythe behavioral criterion for multiple detonations. The criterion for behavioral disturbance used in thisanalysis is based on use of multiple explosives that only take place during a FIREX (with IMPASS) eventor a BOMBEX event involving MK-82 or MK-83 bombs.TABLE 3.7-4EFFECTS, CRITERIA, AND THRESHOLDS FOR IMPULSIVE SOUNDSEffect Criteria Metric Threshold EffectOnset ofindexed to 30.5 psi-msecGoertner modified positiveExtensive Lung(assumes 100% small MortalityimpulseInjuryanimal at 26.9 lbs)MortalityInjuriousPhysiologicalInjuriousPhysiologicalNon-injuriousPhysiologicalNon-injuriousPhysiologicalNon-injuriousBehavioral50% TympanicMembraneRupture- PTSOnset SlightLung InjuryTTSTTSBehavioralDisturbanceMMPA: Marine Mammal Protection ActTTS: Temporary Threshold ShiftPTS: Permanent Threshold ShiftAcoustic EnvironmentEnergy flux densityGoertner modified positiveimpulseGreatest energy flux densitylevel in any 1/3-octave band(above 100 Hz for toothedwhales/sea turtles and above10 Hz for baleen whales) - fortotal energy over allexposuresPeak pressure for any singleexposureGreatest energy flux densitylevel in any 1/3-octave (above100 Hz for toothed whales/seaturtles and above 10 Hz forbaleen whales) - for totalenergy over all exposures(multiple explosions only)1.17 in-lbs/in 2 (about205 dB re 1 Pa 2 -sec)indexed to 13 psi-msec(assumes 100% smallanimal at 26.9 lbs)182 dB re 1 Pa 2 -sec23 psi177 dB re 1 Pa 2 -secMMPA -Level AMMPA -Level AMMPA -Level BMMPA -Level BMMPA -Level BSound propagation (the spreading or attenuation of sound) in the oceans of the world is affected byseveral environmental factors: water depth, variations in sound speed within the water column, surfaceroughness, and the geo-acoustic properties of the ocean bottom. These parameters can vary widely withlocation.3-210 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsFour types of data are used to define the acoustic environment for each analysis site:Seasonal Sound Velocity Profiles (SVP) – Plots of propagation speed (velocity) as a function of depth,or SVPs, are a fundamental tool used for predicting how sound will travel. Seasonal SVP averages wereobtained for each training area.Seabed Geo-acoustics – The type of sea floor influences how much sound is absorbed and how muchsound is reflected back into the water column.Wind Speeds – Several environmental inputs, such as wind speed and surface roughness, are necessary tomodel acoustic propagation in the prospective training areas.Bathymetry data - Bathymetry data are necessary to model acoustic propagation and were obtained foreach of the training areas.Acoustic Effects AnalysisThe exercises that use explosives include: FIREX with IMPASS, MISSILEX, BOMBEX, MINEX, andsmall arms training. Table 3.7-5 summarizes the number of events (per year) for the No ActionAlternative and specific areas where each occurs for each type of explosive ordnance used. Table 3.7-6summarizes the number of events (per year) for Alternative 1 and specific areas where each occurs foreach type of explosive ordnance used. Table 3.7-7 summarizes the number of events (per year) forAlternative 2 and specific areas where each occurs for each type of explosive ordnance used. Events cantake place at any time of year and can be assumed to be evenly distributed across all four seasons (unlessspecified otherwise).TABLE 3.7-5NUMBER OF EXPLOSIVE EVENTS WITHIN THE VACAPES RANGE COMPLEX FOR NOACTION ALTERNATIVESub-Area Ordnance Annual TotalsMISSILEXAir-KHellfireW-72A (2)Hellfire30Air-K Maverick 20FIREX5C/D5" rounds7C/D and 8C/D 5" rounds221C1/2 5" roundsMINEXW-50 UNDET 20 LBS* 12BOMBEXAir-K MK-82** 58Air-K MK-83** 23Air-K MK-84 8Air-K MK-20 12Area 3B MK-82** 20Area 3B MK-83** 10Area 3B MK-84 1* MINEX events are more likely to take place during the summer. This was taken into account in the acoustic exposure analysis.** One event using the MK-82 or MK-83 bombs consists of 4 bombs being dropped in succession. For example, in VACAPES Air-Kthere are 23 MK-83 events, which mean that a total of 92 bombs will be dropped per year.3-211 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-6NUMBER OF EXPLOSIVE EVENTS WITHIN THE VACAPES RANGE COMPLEX FORALTERNATIVE 1Sub-Area Ordnance Annual TotalsMISSILEXAir-K Hellfire 45W-72A (2) Hellfire 15Air-K Maverick 20FIREX5C/D5" rounds7C/D and 8C/D 5" rounds221C1/2 5" roundsMINEXW-50 UNDET 5 LBS* 30W-50 UNDET 20 LBS** 24BOMBEXAir-K MK-82*** 58Air-K MK-83*** 23Air-K MK-84 8Air-K MK-20 12Area 3B MK-82*** 20Area 3B MK-83*** 10Area 3B MK-84 1*The use of 3.24 lb charges during AMNS training were conservatively modeled as 5 lb charges.** MINEX (20 lb) are more likely to take place during the summer. This was taken into account in the acoustic exposure analysis.*** One event using the MK-82 or MK-83 bombs consists of 4 bombs being dropped in succession. For example, in VACAPES Air-Kthere are 23 MK-83 events, which mean that a total of 92 bombs will be dropped per year.TABLE 3.7-7NUMBER OF EXPLOSIVE EVENTS WITHIN THE VACAPES RANGE COMPLEX FORALTERNATIVE 2Sub-Area Ordnance Annual TotalsMISSILEXAir-K Hellfire 45W-72A (2) Hellfire 15Air-K Maverick 20FIREX5C/D5" rounds7C/D and 8C/D 5" rounds221C1/2 5" roundsMINEXW-50 UNDET 5 LBS* 30W-50 UNDET 20 LBS** 24BOMBEXAir-K MK-83*** 5*The use of 3.24 lb charges during AMNS training were conservatively modeled as 5 lb charges.** MINEX (20 lb) are more likely to take place during the summer. This was taken into account in the acoustic exposure analysis.*** One event using the MK-82 or MK-83 bombs consists of 4 bombs being dropped in succession. For example, in VACAPES Air-Kthere are 23 MK-83 events, which mean that a total of 92 bombs will be dropped per year.The acoustic effects analysis presented in the following sections is briefly described for each major typeof exercise. A more in-depth description of the modeling can be found in Appendix J.3-212 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISFIREX (with IMPASS)Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsModeling was completed for a 5-in. round, 8-lbs Net Explosive Weight (NEW) charge exploding at adepth of 1 ft (0.3 m). The analysis approach begins using a high-fidelity acoustic model to estimateenergy in each 5-in. explosive round. Effects areas are calculated by summing the energy from multipleexplosions over a firing exercise (FIREX) mission, and determining the effects area based on thethresholds and criteria. Non-injurious exposures were determined based on the 177 dB re 1 Pa 2 -sec(energy) criteria for behavioral disturbance due to the use of multiple explosions.Effect areas for a full FIREX (with IMPASS) event must account for the time and space distribution of 39explosions, as well as the movement of animals (using 3 knot average swim speed) over the several hoursof the exercise. The total effect area for the 39-shot event is calculated as the sum of small effect areasfor seven FIREX missions (each with four to six rounds fired) and one pre-FIREX action (with six roundsfired). Table 3.7-8 shows the Zone of Influence (ZOI) results of the model estimation.TABLE 3.7-8ESTIMATED ZOIS (KM 2 ) FOR A SINGLE FIREX (WITH IMPASS) EVENT (39 ROUNDS)AreaEstimated ZOI@ 177 dB re 1 Pa 2 -sec(multiple explosions only)Estimated ZOI@ 23 psi (peak)Estimated ZOI@ 205 dB re 1 Pa 2 -secor 13 psi-ms5C/D * 3.7044 0.164647C/D and 8C/D 5.6595 3.7044 0.164641C1/2 * 3.7044 0.16464* In this area, which occurs in shallow water, the ZOI resulting from the 177 dB re 1 uPa 2 -s (1/3 octave band) behavioraldisturbance criterion is larger than the ZOI resulting from the 182 dB re 1 uPa 2 -s (1/3 octave band)/23 psi (peak pressure) dualcriteria for TTS, and was therefore used in the analysis to calculate non-injurious exposures.The ZOI, when multiplied by the animal densities and the total number of events (Tables 3.7-5 to 3.7-7),provides the exposure estimates for that animal species for the nominal exercise case of 39 5-in. explosiverounds. The potential effects would occur within a series of small effect areas associated with the precalibrationrounds and missions spread out over a period of several hours. Additionally, target locationsare changed from event to event and because of the time lag between events, it is highly unlikely, even ifa marine mammal were present, that the marine mammal would be within the small exposure zone formore than one event. The exposure results based on the injurious criteria (13 psi-ms or 205 dB re 1 Pa 2 -sec) were very low, and extrapolation showed there would be zero mortality exposures, so modeling wasnot completed for the 30.5 psi mortality criterion.FIREX (with IMPASS) is restricted two primary locations (1C1/2; 7C/D & 8C/D) and a secondarylocation (5C/D) (Figure 2.2-10). In addition to other mitigation measures (see Chapter 5), a dedicatedlookout monitors the target area for marine mammals and sea turtles before the exercise, during thedeployment of the IMPASS array, and during the return to firing position. Ships will not fire on the targetuntil the area is cleared and will suspend the exercise if any marine mammals (or sea turtles) enter thebuffer area. Implementation of mitigation measures like these reduce the likelihood of exposure andpotential effects in the ZOI.BOMBEXModeling was completed for four explosive sources involved in BOMBEX, each assumed detonation at1-m depth. The NEW used in simulations of the MK-82, MK-83 and MK-84 explosives are 192-lbs, 385-lbs, 945-lbs, respectively. The MK-20 explosive is a cluster bomb that houses 247 bomblets where eachbomblet holds 0.4-lbs of an explosive mixture referred to as Comp B. The Trinitrotoluene (TNT)equivalent weight of each bomblet is 0.444-lbs. All of the individual bomblets in the MK-20 cluster bombdetonate so close in time (on the order of seconds) and space, that for the purposes of the acoustic3-213 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsmodeling, it is considered one explosion. Thus, the total equivalent weight of the MK-20 bomb is 98.5-lbs.The MK-84 and MK-20 bombs are dropped one at a time and, therefore, are modeled as a singledetonation event. More specifically, the single explosion dual TTS criteria were used to determine theZOI for the non-injurious exposure analysis.Determining the ZOI for the thresholds in terms of total energy flux density (EFD), impulse, peak pressureand 1/3-octave bands EFD must treat the sequential explosions differently than the single explosions. Forthe MK-82 and MK-83, two factors are involved for the sequential explosives that deal with the spatial andtemporal distribution of the detonations as well as the effective accumulation of the resultant acoustics. Inview of the ZOI determinations, the sequential explosions are modeled as a single point event with only theEFD summed incoherently 10 :Total EFD db 10log 1010ni1( EFD i /10)The multiple explosives behavioral disturbance energy criterion was used to determine the ZOI for thenon-injurious exposure analysis for the MK-82 and MK-83 bombs.Tables 3.7-9 and 3.7-10 show the ZOI results of the model estimation. The ZOI, when multiplied by theanimal densities and total number of events (Tables 3.7-5 to 3.7-7), provides the exposure estimates forthat animal species for the given bomb source.BOMBEX is restricted to one location (Air-K) for Alternative 2 (Figure 2.2-7) and split between twoareas (Air-K and Air-3B) for Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative (Figure 2.2-6). In addition toother mitigation measures (see Chapter 5), aircraft will survey the target area for marine mammals andsea turtles before and during the exercise. Aircraft will not drop ordnance on the target until the area issurveyed and determined to be free of marine mammals (or sea turtles). The exercise will be suspended ifany marine mammals (or sea turtles) enter the area. Implementation of mitigation measures like thesereduce the likelihood of exposure and potential effects in the ZOI.MINEXThe Comprehensive Acoustic System Simulation/Gaussian Ray Bundle (Oceanographic and AtmosphericMaster Library [OAML], 2002) model, modified to account for impulse response, shock-wave waveform,and nonlinear shock-wave effects, was run for acoustic-environmental conditions derived from the OAMLstandard databases. The explosive source was modeled with standard similitude formulas, as in theChurchill FEIS. Because all the sites are shallow (less than 50 m), propagation model runs were made forbathymetry in the range from 10 m to 40 m.Estimated ZOIs varied as much within a single area as from one area to another, which had been the casefor the Virtual At Sea Training/IMPASS (DoN, 2003). There was, however, little season dependence. Asa result, the ZOIs are stated as mean values with a percentage variation. Generally, in the case of rangesdetermined from energy metrics, as the depth of water increases, the range shortens. The single explosiondual TTS criteria (energy or peak pressure) were used to determine the ZOI for the non-injuriousexposure analysis. Table 3.7-11 shows the ZOI results of the model estimation.10 When the explosions are spaced at greater distance than a few wavelengths for the specific frequencies of interest (the spectralregions where acoustic energy is strongest), then the resulting energy flux density (EFD) levels in all directions can be assumedto be simply the sum of the individual EFDs (incoherent sum).3-214 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-9ESTIMATED ZOIS (KM 2 ) USED IN EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS FOR BOMBEX INVOLVING SINGLE EXPLOSIVESArea OrdnanceEstimated ZOI@ 182 dB re 1 Pa 2 -secor 23 psi (peak)Estimated ZOI@ 205 dB re 1 Pa 2 -secor 13 psi-msEstimated ZOI@ 30.5 psi-msWin Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum FallVACAPESAir-K MK-84 10.78 10.35 10.56 10.78 0.52 0.67 0.79 0.62 0.13 0.06 0.11 0.18MK-20 2.09 6.06 9.32 10.35 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Air-3B MK-84 11.65 11.65 12.34 11.88 1.40 0.84 0.62 0.57

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-11ESTIMATED ZOIS (KM 2 ) FOR MINEXThresholdZOIs5-lbs NEW20-lbs NEWEstimated ZOI @ 13 psi-ms 0.03 km 2 ± 10% 0.13 km 2 ± 10%Estimated ZOI @ 182 dB re 1 Pa 2 -sec 0.2 km 2 ± 25% 0.8 km 2 ± 25%Note: The ZOI resulting from the 13 psi-ms criterion was larger than the ZOI resulting from the 205 dB re 1 uPa 2 -s (1/3 octaveband) criterion, and was therefore used in the analysis to calculate injurious exposures. The ZOI resulting from the 182 dB re 1uPa 2 -s (1/3 octave band) criterion was larger than the ZOI resulting from the 13 psi-ms criterion, and was therefore used in theanalysis to calculate non-injurious exposures.The ZOI, when multiplied by the animal densities and total number of events (Tables 3.7-5 to 3.7-7),provides the exposure estimates for that animal species for each specified charge. The results for theinjurious exposures at the 13 psi criterion were very low, and extrapolation showed there would be zeromortality exposures, so modeling was not completed for the 30.5 psi mortality criteria.Underwater detonations are restricted to one area (W-50) (Figure 2.2-1). In addition to other mitigationmeasures (see Chapter 5), observers will survey the target area for marine mammals and sea turtles for 30minutes prior through 30 minutes post detonation. Detonations will be suspended if a marine mammal orsea turtle enters the ZOI and will only restart after the area has been clear for a full 30 minutes. Themajority of documented research has noted that most marine mammals complete dives averaging less than30 minutes. Table 3.7-12 is a list of marine mammal dive times that are documented. Therefore, a 30minute shutdown of naval exercises represents an adequate time period to assess marine mammalmovements within the designated area and ensure the animal's safety before actions resume.TABLE 3.7-12MARINE MAMMAL DIVE TIMESCommonNameNorthernAtlantic rightwhaleHumpbackwhaleMinke whaleBryde's whaleSei whaleFin whaleBlue whaleAverage DiveDuration(min)MaximumDiveDuration(min)Scientific NameMysticeti (baleen whales)Eubalaenaglacialis 11.5 - 12.2Megapteranovaeangliae 8.2 21CitationsGoodyear, 1995;Baumgartner and Mate, 2003Dolphin, 1998 ;Schreer and Kovacs, 1997Balaenopteraacutorostrata4.43 Stern, 1992Balaenopterabrydei8 20 Wynne and Schwartz, 1999BalaenopteraLockyer and Waters, 1986 ;20borealiMartin, 1990BalaenopteraCroll et al., 2001 ;physalus 5.5 14 Lockyer and Waters, 1986 ;Watkins et al., 1981BalaenopteraCroll et al., 200;6.6 18musculusLagerquist et al., 20003-216 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-12MARINE MAMMAL DIVE TIMES (Continued)MaximumAverage Dive DiveCommonDuration DurationName Scientific Name (min) (min)CitationsOdontoceti (toothed whales)Sperm whalePhysetermacrocephalus35.9 - 37 73Amano and Yoshioka, 2003Watkins et al., 1993;Omura, 1950; Watkins et al.,1993Evans, 1987; Hohn et al., 1995;Scott et al., 2001Pygmy sperm Kogia brevicepswhale12 -17.7Dwarf sperm Kogia simawhale43 Breese and Tershy, 1993Cuvier's Ziphius cavirostrisBarlow, 1999; Baird et al., 2004;28.6 68beaked whaleBarlow et al., 1997Sowerby's Mesoplodon bidensbeaked whale12 - 29 Hooker and Baird, 1999Blainville's Mesoplodonbeaked whale densirostris23 Baird et al., 2004Rough-toothed Steno bredanensisdolphin15 Miyazaki and Perrin, 1994Bottlenose Tursiops truncatusEvans, 1987;8dolphinRidgway and Harrison, 1986Pantropical Stenella attenuataPerrin et al., 19874.7spotted dolphinScott et al., 1993Atlantic Stenella frontalisspotted dolphin5 - 6 Davis et al., 1996Spinner Stenelladolphin longirostris3.5 Wursig et al., 1994Common Dephinus delphisHeyning and Perin 1994;5dolphinEvans, 1971Atlantic whitesideddolphin acutusLagenorhynchus4 Mate et al., 1994Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus 30 Clarke, 1986False killer Pseudorcawhale crassidens8 - 12 Ligon and Baird, 2001Killer whale Orcinus orcaBaird et al., 2005;10.4 - 15Schreer and Kovacs, 1997Long-finnedpilot whaleShort-finnedpilot whaleHarborporpoiseGlobicephalamelasGlobicephalamacrorhynchusPhocoenaphocoena8.1 Baird et al., 200227 Baird et al., 20035.35Westgate et al., 1995;Otani et al., 1998; 20003-217 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-12MARINE MAMMAL DIVE TIMES (Continued)MaximumAverage Dive DiveCommonDuration DurationName Scientific Name (min) (min)CitationsPinnipedia (seals, sea lions, walruses)Harbor seal Phoca vitulina 7 Schreer and Kovacs, 1997Gray seal Halichoerus grypus 32 Schreer and Kovacs, 1997Harp seal Pagophilusgroenlandicus16 Schreer and Kovacs, 1997Sirenia (manatees and dugongs)West IndianmanateeTrichechusmanatus6 Schreer and Kovacs, 1997MISSILEX (Hellfire and Maverick)Modeling was completed for two explosive missiles involved in MISSILEX, each assumed detonation at1-m depth. The NEW used in simulations of the Hellfire and Maverick missiles are 8 lbs and 80 lbs,respectively. The single explosion dual TTS criteria (energy or peak pressure) were used to determine theZOI for the non-injurious exposure analysis. Table 3.7-13 shows the ZOI results of the model estimation.The total ZOI, when multiplied by the animal densities (Table 3.7-1) and total number of events (Tables3.7-5 through 3.7-7), provides the exposure estimates for that animal species for each specified missile.MISSILEX is restricted to two locations, Air-K, W-72A2 (Figures 2.2-8 and 2.2-9). In addition to othermitigation measures (see Chapter 5), aircraft will survey the target area for marine mammals or sea turtlesbefore and during the exercise. Aircraft will not fire on the target until the area is cleared and will suspendthe exercise if any enter the buffer area. Implementation of mitigation measures like these reduce thelikelihood of exposure and potential effects in the ZOI.3.7.3.3 No Action AlternativeVessel MovementsOverviewThe No Action Alternative includes vessel movements. These involve transit to and from port to thevarious components of the VACAPES Study Area (e.g., OPAREA, Chesapeake Bay training areas, andwarning areas), as well as vessel movements within and through the Range Complex to other destinations.Many of the ongoing and proposed operations within the VACAPES Study Area involve maneuvers byvarious types of surface ships, boats, and submarines (collectively referred to as vessels). Vesselmovements have the potential to affect marine mammals by directly striking or disturbing individualanimals. The probability of vessel and marine mammal interactions occurring in the VACAPES StudyArea is dependent on several factors including numbers, types, and speeds of vessels; the regularity,duration, and spatial extent of operations; the presence/absence and density of marine mammals; andprotective measures implemented by the Navy. Currently, the number of Navy vessels operating in theVACAPES Study Area varies based on training schedules and can range from 0 to about 10 vessels at anygiven time. Ship sizes range from 362 feet for a nuclear submarine (SSN) to 1,092 feet for a nuclearpowered aircraft carrier (CVN).3-218 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsArea OrdnanceTABLE 3.7-13ESTIMATED ZOIS (KM 2 ) USED IN EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS FOR MISSILEXEstimated ZOI@ 182 dB re 1 Pa 2 -sor 23 psi (peak)Estimated ZOI@ 205 dB re 1 Pa 2 -sor 13 psi-msEstimated ZOI@ 30.5 psi-msWin Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum FallAir-K Hellfire 0.44 0.49 0.48 0.49 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsOperations involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from afew hours up to 2 weeks. These operations are widely dispersed throughout the OPAREA, which is avast area encompassing 27,661 nm 2 (an area approximately the size of Indiana). Consequently, thedensity of ships within the Study Area at any given time is extremely low (i.e., less than 0.0004ships/nm 2 ). The Navy logs about 1400 total steaming days within the Study Area during a typical year.Also, it should be noted that a variety of smaller craft, such as service vessels for routine operations andopposition forces used during training events will be operating within the Study Area. Small craft types,sizes and speeds vary. The Navy’s rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) is one representative example of asmall craft that may be used during training exercises. By way of example, the Naval Special WarfareRHIB is 35 feet in length and has a speed of 40+ knots. Other small craft, such as those used in maritimesecurity training events, are of similar length and speed to the RHIB and often resemble, and often are,recreational fishing boats (i.e., a 30 - 35 foot center consol boat with twin outboard engines).During training, speeds generally range from 10 to 14 knots; however, ships/craft can and will, onoccasion, operate within the entire spectrum of their specific operational capabilities. It is necessary forvessels/craft to operate at higher speeds during specific events, such as, but not limited to, pursuing andovertaking hostile vessels, evasive maneuvers, and maintenance/ performance checks, such as ship trials.During these types of events ships may often operate at high speeds (high end of the vessel’s speedcapability). In all cases, the vessels/craft will be operated in a safe manner consistent with the localconditions.While the lookout requirements described above do not apply to small boats, small boat crews are trainedto detect and avoid all objects on or near the water surface as a standard safety measure. In addition,some training exercises that involve small boats also involve a ship that has lookouts. In such cases,observations of marine species by shipboard lookouts would be transmitted to the small boats and theavoidance measures applicable to the ship would apply to the small boats.Disturbance Associated with Vessel MovementsMarine mammals are frequently exposed to vessels due to research, ecotourism, commercial and privatevessel traffic, and government activities. The presence of vessels has the potential to alter the behaviorpatterns of marine mammals. It is difficult to differentiate between responses to vessel sound and visualcues associated with the presence of a vessel; thus, it is assumed that both play a role in promptingreactions from animals. Anthropogenic sound has increased in the marine environment over the past 50years (Richardson et al. 1995; NRC, 2003) and can be attributed to vessel traffic, marine dredging andconstruction, oil and gas drilling, geophysical surveys, sonar, and underwater explosions (Richardson etal. 1995).Marine mammals react to vessels in a variety of ways. Some respond negatively by retreating orengaging in antagonistic responses while other animals ignore the stimulus altogether (Watkins, 1986;Terhune and Verboom, 1999). The Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed marine mammal species (blue,fin, humpback, North Atlantic right, sei, sperm whales, and manatees) that occur in the Study Area are notgenerally documented to approach vessels in their vicinity. The predominant reaction is either neutral oravoidance behavior, rather than attraction behavior. Additional information regarding each listed speciesis provided below.North Atlantic Right WhalesAlthough very few data exist examining the relationship between vessel presence and significant impactto the North Atlantic right whale, it is thought that any impacts from vessel disturbance would be minorand/or temporary in nature (NMFS, 2005a). North Atlantic right whales continually utilize habitats inhigh ship traffic areas (Nowacek et al., 2004). Studies show that North Atlantic right whales have little, ifany, reaction to sounds of vessel approaching or the presence of the vessels themselves (Terhune and3-220 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsVerboom, 1999; Nowacek et al., 2004). In addition, North Atlantic right whales are protected throughmeasures such as the 500-yard no-approach limit, which affords them additional protection and furtheralleviates any effect vessel traffic might have on behavior or distribution (NMFS, 1997).Fin and Humpback WhalesFin whales have been observed altering their swimming patterns by increasing speed and heading awayfrom the vessel, as well as changing their breathing patterns in response to a vessel approach (Jahoda etal., 2003). Observations show that when vessels remained 100 m or farther from fin and humpbackwhales, they were largely ignored (Watkins et al., 1981). Only when vessels approached more closely didthe fin whales in the study alter their behavior by increasing time at the surface and engaging in evasivemaneuvers. In this study, humpback whales did not exhibit any avoidance behavior (Watkins etal., 1981). However, in other instances, humpback whales did react to vessel presence. In a study ofregional vessel traffic, Baker et al. (1983) found that when vessels were in the area, the respirationpatterns of the humpback whales changed. The whales also exhibited two forms of behavioral avoidance:1) horizontal avoidance (changing direction and/or speed) when vessels were between 2,000 and 4,000 maway, or 2) vertical avoidance (increased dive times and change in diving pattern) when vessels werebetween 0 and 2,000 m away (Baker et al., 1983).Based on existing studies, it is likely that fin and humpback whales would have little reaction to vesselsthat maintain a reasonable distance from the animals. The distance that will provoke a response variesbased on many factors including, but not limited to, vessel size, geographic location, and individualanimal tolerance levels (Watkins et al., 1981; Baker et al., 1983; Jahoda et al., 2003). Should the vesselsapproach close enough to invoke a reaction, animals may engage in avoidance behaviors and/or alter theirbreathing patterns. Reactions exhibited by the whales would be temporary in nature. They would beexpected to return to their pre-disturbance activities once the vessel has left the area.Blue and Sei WhalesThere is little information on blue whale or sei whale response to vessel presence (NMFS, 1998b;NMFS, 1998a). Sei whales have been observed ignoring the presence of vessels and passing close to thevessel (Weinrich et al., 1986). The response of blue and sei whales to vessel traffic is assumed to besimilar to that of the other baleen whales, ranging from avoidance maneuvers to disinterest in thepresence of vessels. Any behavioral response would be short-term in nature.Sperm WhalesSperm whales generally had little to no reaction to ships, except on close approaches (within severalhundred meters); however, some did show avoidance behavior such as quick diving (Würsig et al., 1998).In addition, in the presence of whale watching and research boats, changes in respiration (alter blowintervals) and echolocation patterns (reduced time until first click after diving) were observed in malesperm whales (Richter et al., 2006). Disturbance from boats does not generally result in a change inbehavior patterns and is short-term in nature (Magalhães et al., 2002).West Indian ManateesThe presence of vessels has the potential to alter the behavior patterns of West Indian manatees. WestIndian manatees respond to vessel movement via acoustic and possibly visual cues (Miksis-Olds et al.,2007; Nowacek et al., 2004b). West Indian manatees tend to move away from the approaching vessel, byincreasing their rate of swimming speed and moving toward deeper water (Nowacek et al., 2004b). Thedegree of response varies with individual West Indian manatees and may be more pronounced in areas ofdeeper water, where they are more easily able to locate the direction of the approaching vessel (Nowaceket al., 2004b). This disturbance is a temporary response to the approaching vessel. West Indian manateeshave also been shown to seek out areas with a lower density of vessels (Buckingham et al. 1999). West3-221 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsIndian manatees react (i.e., exhibit a clear behavioral response) to vessels within distances of 25 to 50 m,but it is unclear at what distance the West Indian manatees first detect the presence of vessels (Nowaceket al., 2004b). Vessel traffic and recreational activities that disturb West Indian manatees may cause themto leave preferred habitats and may alter biologically important behaviors such as feeding, suckling, orresting (Haubold et al., 2006). The overall distribution of West Indian manatees may be affected by areasof high recreational boat activity (Buckingham et al., 1999).DelphinidsSpecies of delphinids can vary widely in their reaction to vessels. Many exhibit mostly neutral behavior,but there are frequent instances of observed avoidance behaviors (Hewitt 1985; Würsig et al., 1998). Inaddition, approaches by vessels can elicit changes in behavior, including a decrease in resting behavior orchange in travel direction (Bejder et al., 2006). Alternately, many of the delphinid species exhibitbehavior indicating attraction to vessels. This can include just approaching a vessel (observed in harborporpoises) (David, 2002), but many species such as common, rough-toothed and bottlenose dolphins arefrequently observed bow riding or jumping in the wake of a vessel (Norris and Prescott, 1961; Shane etal., 1986; Würsig et al., 1998; Ritter 2002). These behavioral alterations are short-term and would notresult in any lasting effects.Dwarf and Pygmy Sperm Whales and Beaked WhalesKogia spp. and beaked whales show strong adverse reactions to vessels. They engage in quick divingbehavior and avoidance maneuvers (Würsig et al., 1998).Chronic stress response to vessel movements-- Marine mammals exposed to a passing Navy vessel maynot respond at all, or they could exhibit a short-term behavioral response, but not to the extent wherenatural behavioral patterns would be abandoned or significantly altered. Human disturbance to wildanimals may elicit similar reactions to those caused by natural predators (Gill et al., 2001; Beale andMonaghan, 2004). Behavioral responses may also be accompanied by a physiological response (Romero,2004), although this is very difficult to study in the wild. Short-term exposures to stressors result inchanges in immediate behavior (Frid, 2003). Repeated exposure to stressors, including humandisturbance such as vessel disturbance and anthropogenic sound, can result in negative consequences tothe health and viability of an individual or population. In individual bottlenose dolphins, chronic stressdue to physical injury or disease, resulted in morphological changes to the adrenal glands (Clark et al.,2006). Although this study related to natural induced stressors, similar physiological changes may resultfrom other types of stressors such as anthropogenic disturbance. Chronic stress can result in decreasedreproductive success (Lordi et al., 2000; Beale and Monaghan, 2004), decreased energy budget (Frid,2003), displacement from habitat (Southerland and Crockford, 1993), and lower survival rates ofoffspring (Lordi et al., 2000). At this time, it is unknown what the long-term implications of chronicstress may be on marine mammal species.Vessel movements under the No Action Alternative are not expected to result in chronic stress because, asdiscussed above, Navy vessel density in the Study Area would remain low and the Navy implementsmitigation measures to avoid marine mammals (and sea turtles).Summary-- Vessel traffic related to the proposed activity would pass near marine mammals only on anincidental basis. Most of the studies mentioned previously examine the reaction of animals to vessels thatapproach and intend to follow or observe an animal (i.e., whale watching vessels, research vessels, etc.).Reactions to vessels not pursuing the animals, such as those transiting through an area or engaged intraining exercises, may be similar but would likely result in less stress to the animal because they wouldnot intentionally approach animals. In fact, Navy mitigation measures include several provisions to avoidapproaching marine mammals (or sea turtles) (see Chapter 5 for a detailed description of mitigation3-222 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsmeasures). Listed cetacean species generally pay little attention to transiting vessel traffic as itapproaches, although they may engage in last minute avoidance maneuvers (Laist et al., 2001). Aspreviously noted, all quick avoidance maneuvers are short-term alterations and not expected topermanently impact an animal. Most studies have ascertained the short-term response to vessel sound andvessel traffic (Watkins et al., 1981; Baker, et al., 1983; Magalhães et al., 2002); however, the long-termimplications of ship sound on marine mammals is largely unknown (NMFS, 2007b).General disturbance associated with vessel movements may affect ESA-listed cetaceans, but is notexpected to result in Level A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA. Manatees only rarelyoccur in the area because it is within the northern extent of the animal's summer range. Navy vesselstransit nearshore waters; however, most operations occur in the Atlantic Ocean greater than 3 nm offshoreor in relatively deep waters of the lower Chesapeake Bay, where manatees are not expected to occur. Novessel operations occur in areas that provide foraging habitat for the manatee. In addition, the Navy hasadopted mitigation measures to reduce the potential for interactions with marine mammals. Therefore,general disturbance associated with vessel disturbance would have no effect on the manatee. Inaccordance with NEPA, vessel disturbance in territorial waters would have no significant impact onmarine mammals. Furthermore, vessel disturbance in non-territorial waters would not cause significantharm to marine mammals in accordance with EO 12114.Vessel StrikesCollisions with commercial and Navy ships can result in serious injury and may occasionally causefatalities to cetaceans and manatees. Although the most vulnerable marine mammals may be assumed tobe slow-moving cetaceans or those that spend extended periods of time at the surface in order to restoreoxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives (e.g., sperm whale), fin whales are actually struck mostfrequently (Laist et al. 2001). Manatees are also particularly susceptible to vessel interactions andcollisions, with recreational watercraft constitute the leading cause of mortality (USFWS 2007). Smallermarine mammals such as bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins move more quickly throughout thewater column and are often seen riding the bow wave of large ships. Marine mammal responses tovessels may include avoidance and changes in dive pattern (NRC, 2003).After reviewing historical records and computerized stranding databases for evidence of ship strikesinvolving baleen and sperm whales, Laist et al. (2001) found that accounts of large whale ship strikesinvolving motorized boats in the area date back to at least the late 1800s. Ship collisions remainedinfrequent until the 1950s, after which point they increased. Laist et al. (2001) report that both the numberand speed of motorized vessels have increased over time for trans-Atlantic passenger services, whichtransit through the area. They concluded that most strikes occur over or near the continental shelf, thatship strikes likely have a negligible effect on the status of most whale populations, but that for smallpopulations or segments of populations the impact of ship strikes may be significant.Although ship strike mortalities may represent a small proportion of whale populations, Laist et al. (2001)also concluded that, when considered in combination with other human-related mortalities in the area(e.g., entanglement in fishing gear), these ship strikes may present a concern for whale populations.Of 11 species known to be hit by ships, fin whales are struck most frequently; right whales, humpbackwhales, sperm whales, and gray whales are all hit commonly (Laist et al 2001). In some areas, one-thirdof all fin whale and right whale strandings appear to involve ship strikes. Sperm whales spend longperiods (typically up to 10 minutes; Jacquet et al. 1996) "rafting" at the surface between deep dives. Thiscould make them exceptionally vulnerable to ship strikes. Berzin (1972) noted that there were "many"reports of sperm whales of different age classes being struck by vessels, including passenger ships and tugboats. There were also instances in which sperm whales approached vessels too closely and were cut bythe propellers (NMFS 2006d).3-223 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsAccordingly, the Navy has adopted mitigation measures to reduce the potential for collisions withsurfaced marine mammals (for more details refer to Chapter 5). These measures include the following: Using lookouts trained to detect all objects on the surface of the water, including marine mammals andsea turtles. Implementing reasonable and prudent actions to avoid the close interaction of Navy assets and marinemammals (or sea turtles). Maneuvering to keep away from any observed marine mammal.Navy shipboard lookouts (also referred to as "watchstanders") are highly qualified and experiencedobservers of the marine environment. Their duties require that they report all objects sighted in the waterto the Officer of the Deck (e.g., trash, a periscope, marine mammals, sea turtles) and all disturbances (e.g.,surface disturbance, discoloration) that may be indicative of a threat to the vessel and its crew. There arepersonnel serving as lookouts on station at all times (day and night) when a ship or surfaced submarine ismoving through the water. Navy lookouts undergo extensive training in order to qualify as a lookout. Thistraining includes on-the-job instruction under the supervision of an experienced lookout, followed bycompletion of the Personal Qualification Standard program, certifying that they have demonstrated thenecessary skills (such as detection and reporting of partially submerged objects).The Navy includes marine species awareness as part of its training for its bridge lookout personnel onships and submarines. Lookouts are trained how to look for marine species, and report sightings to theOfficer of the Deck so that action may be taken to avoid the marine species or adjust the exercise tominimize effects to the species. Marine Species Awareness Training was updated in 2006, and theadditional training materials are now included as required training for Navy ship and submarine lookouts.Additionally, all Commanding Officers and Executive Officers of units involved in training exercises arerequired to undergo marine species awareness training. This training addresses the lookout's role inenvironmental protection, laws governing the protection of marine species, Navy stewardshipcommitments, and general observation information to aid in avoiding interactions with marine species.North Atlantic right whales are of particular concern. On average one or two right whales are killedannually in collisions. Between 2001 and 2007, at least eight right whales, including four adult females, ajuvenile male, a juvenile female and a female calf died as a result of being struck by ships. (MMC 2008)(RWC 2007)In order to reduce the risk of ship strikes, the Navy has instituted North Atlantic right whale protectivemeasures that cover vessels operating all along the Atlantic coast. Standing protective measures andannual guidance have been in place for ships in the vicinity of the right whale critical habitat off theSoutheast coast since 1997. In addition to specific operating guidelines, the Navy’s efforts in thesoutheast include annual funding support to the Early Warning System (EWS), and organization of acommunication network and reporting system to ensure the widest possible dissemination of right whalesighting information to Department of Defense and civilian shipping.In 2002 right whale protective measures were promulgated for all Fleet activities occurring in theNortheast region and most recently in December 2004, the U.S. Navy issued further guidance for all Fleetships to increase awareness of right whale migratory patterns and implement additional protectivemeasures along the mid-Atlantic coast. This includes areas where ships transit between southern NewEngland and northern Florida. The Navy coordinated with NOAA Fisheries for identification of seasonalright whale occurrence patterns in six major sections of the mid-Atlantic coast, with particular attention toport and coastal areas of key interest for vessel traffic management. The Navy’s resulting guidance callsfor extreme caution and operation at a slow, safe speed within 20 nm arcs of specified coastal and portreference points. The guidance reiterates previous instructions that Navy ships post two lookouts, one of3-224 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalswhom must have completed marine mammal recognition training, and emphasizes the need for utmostvigilance in performance of these watchstander duties.The Navy has enacted additional protective measures to protect North Atlantic right whales in the mid-Atlantic region. The mid-Atlantic is a principal migratory corridor for North Atlantic right whales thattravel between the calving/nursery areas in the Southeastern United States and feeding grounds in thenortheast US and Canada. Southward right whale migration generally occurs from mid- to late November,although some right whales may arrive off the Florida coast in early November and stay into late March(Kraus et al., 1993). The northbound migration generally takes place between January and late March.Data indicate that during the spring and fall migration, right whales typically occur in shallow waterimmediately adjacent to the coast, with over half the sightings (63.8%) occurring within 18.5 km (10 nm),and 94.1 percent reported within 55 km (30 nm) of the coast.Given the low abundance of North Atlantic right whales relative to other species, the frequency ofoccurrence of ship strikes to right whales suggests that the threat of ship strikes is proportionally greaterto this species (Jensen and Silber, 2003). NMFS has implemented a right whale vessel collision reductionstrategy to establish operational measures for the shipping industry to reduce the potential for large vesselship strikes of North Atlantic right whales while transiting to and from mid-Atlantic ports during rightwhale migratory periods (NMFS, 2008a). Recent studies of right whales have shown that these whalestend to lack a response to the sounds of oncoming vessels (Nowacek et al., 2004). Although Navy vesseltraffic generally represents only 2 to 3 percent of the overall large vessel traffic, based on this biologicalcharacteristic and the presence of critical Navy ports along the whales’ mid-Atlantic migratory corridor,the Navy was the first federal agency to adopt additional protective measures for transits in the vicinity ofmid-Alantic ports during right whale migration.Specifically, the Navy has unilaterally adopted the following protective measures: During months of expected North Atlantic right whale occurrence, Navy vessels will practiceincreased vigilance with respect to avoidance of vessel-whale interactions along the mid-Atlanticcoast, including transits to and from any mid-Atlantic ports. All surface units transiting within 30 nm of the coast in the mid-Atlantic will ensure at least twowatchstanders are posted, including at least one lookout that has completed required marine mammalawareness training. Navy vessels will avoid knowingly approaching any whale head on and will maneuver to keep at least460 m (1,500 ft) away from any observed whale, consistent with vessel safety.For purposes of these measures, the mid-Atlantic is defined broadly to include ports south and east ofBlock Island Sound southward to South Carolina. These measures are similar to vessel transit proceduresin place since 1997 for Navy vessels in the vicinity of designated right whale critical habitat in thesoutheastern United States. Based on the implementation of Navy mitigation measures, especially duringtimes of anticipated right whale occurrence, and the relatively low density of Navy ships in the study areathe likelihood that a vessel collision would occur is very low.Aircraft OverflightsOverviewVarious types of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters are used in training exercises throughout theVACAPES Study Area (see Chapter 2 and Appendix D). These aircraft overflights would produceairborne noise and some of this energy would be transmitted into the water. Marine mammals could beexposed to noise associated with subsonic and supersonic fixed-wing aircraft overflights and helicopteroperations while at the surface or while submerged (see Section 3.5 – Noise Environment for adescription of the existing noise environment and Appendix H for an overview of airborne and3-225 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsunderwater acoustics). In addition to sound, marine mammals could react to the shadow of a low-flyingaircraft and/or, in the case of helicopters, surface disturbance from the downdraft.Transmission of sound from a moving airborne source to a receptor underwater is influenced bynumerous factors and has been addressed by Urick (1972), Young (1973), Richardson et al. (1995), Ellerand Cavanagh (2000), Laney and Cavanagh (2000), and others. Sound is transmitted from an airbornesource to a receptor underwater by four principal means: (1) a direct path, refracted upon passing throughthe air-water interface; (2) direct-refracted paths reflected from the bottom in shallow water; (3) lateral(evanescent) transmission through the interface from the airborne sound field directly above; and (4)scattering from interface roughness due to wave motion.Aircraft sound is refracted upon transmission into water because sound waves move faster through waterthan through air (a ratio of about 0.23:1). Based on this difference, the direct sound path is totallyreflected if the sound reaches the surface at an angle more than 13 degrees from vertical. As a result,most of the acoustic energy transmitted into the water from an aircraft arrives through a relatively narrowcone with a 26 degree apex angle extending vertically downward from the aircraft (Figure 3.7-5). Theintersection of this cone with the surface traces a "footprint" directly beneath the flight path, with thewidth of the footprint being a function of aircraft altitude.The sound pressure field is actually doubled at the air-to-water interface because the large difference inthe acoustic properties of water and air. For example, a sonic boom with a peak pressure of 10 poundsper square foot (psf) at the sea surface becomes an impulsive wave in water with a maximum peakpressure of 20 psf. The pressure and sound levels then decrease with increasing depth.Figure 3.7-5Characteristics of Sound Transmission through Air-Water InterfaceEller and Cavanagh (2000) modeled estimates of sound pressure level as a function of time at selectedunderwater locations (receiver animal depths of two, 10, and 50 m) for F-18 aircraft subsonic overflights(250 knots) at various altitudes (300, 1000, and 3,000 m). As modeled for all deep water scenarios, thesound pressure levels ranged from approximately 120 to 150 dB (referenced to one microPascal [re one3-226 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsμPa]). They concluded that it is difficult to construct cases (for any aircraft at any altitude in anypropagation environment) for which the underwater sound is sufficiently intense and long lasting to causeharm to any form of marine life.The maximum overpressures calculated for F/A-18 aircraft supersonic overflights range from 5.2 psf at10,000 ft to 28.8 psf at 1,000 feet (Ogden, 1997). Considering an extreme case of a sonic boom thatgenerates maximum overpressure of 50 psf in air, it would become an impulsive wave in water with amaximum peak pressure of 100 psf or about 0.7 pounds per square inch (psi). Therefore, even a worstcase situation for sonic booms would produce a peak pressure in water well below the level that iscommonly considered to cause harassment to marine mammals or sea turtles (Laney and Cavanagh, 2000)and not analyzed further.It should be noted that most of the aircraft overflight exposures analyzed in the studies mentioned aboveare different than Navy aircraft overflights. Survey and whale watching aircraft are expected to fly atlower altitudes than typical Navy fixed-wing overflights. Exposure durations would be longer for aircraftintending to observe or follow an animal. These factors might increase the likelihood of a response tosurvey or whale watching aircraft. Exposure to Navy overflights would be very brief, but the noise levelsmight be higher based on aircraft type and airspeed.Fixed-Wing Aircraft OverflightsApproximately 5,966 fixed-wing sorties would occur in the VACAPES OPAREA annually under the NoAction Alternative and more than 88 percent of the sorties would be above 5,000 feet. While fixed-wingaircraft operations can occur in Special Use Airspace throughout the VACAPES Study Area, a majorityof the sorties are associated with Air Combat Maneuver (ACM) training, which takes place in W-72A(Air-2A/B and Air-3A/B) (Figure 2.1-2). Altitudes range from 5,000 to 30,000 feet and typical airspeedsrange from very low (less than 100 knots) to high subsonic (less than 600 knots). Sound exposure levelsat the sea surface from most ACM overflights are expected to be less than 85 dBA (based on an FA-18aircraft flying at an altitude of 5,000 feet and at a subsonic airspeed [400 knots]). Some ACM traininginvolves supersonic flight, which produces sonic booms, but such airspeeds are infrequent and occurabove 30,000 feet.Exposure to fixed-wing aircraft noise would be brief (seconds) as an aircraft quickly passes overhead.Exposures would be infrequent based on the transitory and dispersed nature of the overflights; repeatedexposure to individual animals over a short period of time (hours or days) is extremely unlikely.Furthermore, the sound exposure levels would be relatively low to marine mammals that spend themajority of their time underwater.Most observations of cetacean responses to aircraft overflights are from aerial scientific surveys thatinvolve aircraft flying at relatively low altitudes and low airspeeds. Mullin et al. (1991) reported thatsperm whale reactions to aerial survey aircraft (standard survey altitude of 750 feet) were not consistent.Some sperm whales remained on or near the surface the entire time the aircraft was in the vicinity, whileothers dove immediately or a few minutes after the sighting.Smultea et al. (2001) reported that a group of sperm whales responded to a circling aircraft (altitude of800 to 1,100 feet) by moving closer together and forming a fan-shaped semi-circle with their flukes to thecenter and their heads facing the perimeter. Several sperm whales in the group were observed to turn ontheir sides, to apparently look up toward the aircraft. Smultea et al. (2008) reported that observedreactions of sperm whales to brief fixed-wing aircraft overflights were short-term and probably of nolong-term biological significance. Richter et al. (2003) reported that the number of sperm whale blowsper surfacing increased when recreational whale watching aircraft were present, but the changes inventilation were small and probably of little biological consequence. The presence of whale watching3-227 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsaircraft also apparently caused sperm whales to turn more sharply, but did not affect blow interval,surface time, time to first click, or the frequency of aerial behavior (Richter et al., 2003). A review ofbehavioral observations of baleen whales indicates that whales will either demonstrate no behavioralreaction to an aircraft or, occasionally, display avoidance behavior such as diving (Koski et al., 1998).Smaller delphinids also generally display a neutral or startle response (Würsig et al., 1998). Species, suchas Kogia spp. and beaked whales, that show strong avoidance behaviors with ship traffic, also exhibitdisturbance reactions to aircraft (Würsig et al., 1998). Although there is little information regardingreactions to aircraft overflights for other cetacean species, it is expected that reactions would be similar tothose described above; either no reaction or quick avoidance behavior.Marine mammals exposed to a low-altitude fixed-wing aircraft overflights could exhibit a short-termbehavioral response, but not to the extent where natural behavioral patterns would be abandoned orsignificantly altered. Fixed-wing aircraft overflights are not expected to result in chronic stress because itis extremely unlikely that individual animals would be repeatedly exposed to low altitude overflights.Fixed-wing aircraft overflights may affect ESA-listed marine mammals, but are not expected to result ininjurious or non-injurious effects as defined by the MMPA. In accordance with NEPA, fixed-wingaircraft overflights over territorial waters would have no significant impact on marine mammals.Furthermore, fixed-wing aircraft overflights over non-territorial waters would not cause significant harmto marine mammals in accordance with EO 12114.Helicopter OverflightsApproximately 1,743 helicopter sorties would occur in the VACAPES Study Area annually under the NoAction Alternative. Helicopter overflights can occur throughout the VACAPES Study Area, but mostwould occur in W-50 and the lower Chesapeake Bay under the No Action Alternative. Unlike fixed-wingaircraft, helicopter training operations often occur at low altitudes (75 to 100 feet), which increase thelikelihood that marine mammals would respond to helicopter overflights.Very little data are available regarding reactions of cetaceans to helicopters. One study observed thatsperm whales showed no reaction to a helicopter until the whales encountered the downdrafts from thepropellers (Clarke, 1956). Other species such as bowhead whale and beluga whales show a range ofreactions to helicopter overflights, including diving, breaching, change in direction or behavior, andalteration of breathing patterns, with belugas exhibiting behavioral reactions more frequently thanbowheads (38% and 14% of the time, respectively) (Patenaude et al., 2002). These reactions were lessfrequent as the altitude of the helicopter increased to 150 m or higher. Manatees have been shown toexhibit behavioral reactions to helicopters flying below 100 m by abandoning resting behavior and fleeingto deeper water (Rathbun 1988).Within the lower Chesapeake Bay, helicopter overflights are a component of the MCM exercise, andvarious marine mammal species, including seals and manatees, may occur in this region. However,within the lower Chesapeake Bay, all maneuvers involving helicopters are anticipated to take place inwaters 16 ft or deeper, where manatees are not expected to occur based on preference for shallowerwaters. Manatee exposure to helicopter overflights is not expected under the No Action Alternative.Therefore, helicopter overflights would have no effect on manatees.The three seal species (harp, gray, and harbor) may also occur within the Chesapeake Bay region.However, the harbor seal is the only species that occurs with any regularity. Thus, the likelihood of harpor gray seals being in the area and at or near the water surface is low due to their sparse occurrence.Helicopter overflights would have no effect on harp or gray seals. Helicopters are used in studies ofseveral species of seals hauled out and is considered an effective means of observation (Gjertz and Børset1992; Bester et al. 2002; Bowen et al. 2006), although they have been known to elicit behavioralreactions such as fleeing (Hoover 1988). In other studies, harbor seals showed no reaction to helicopter3-228 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsoverflights (Gjertz and Børset 1992). It is not likely that a harbor seal would be at or near the surface ofthe water in areas where helicopters overflights occur in the lower Chesapeake Bay; however, only shorttermbehavioral reactions are expected if they were be exposed.Marine mammals exposed to a low-altitude helicopter overflights under the No Action Alternative couldexhibit a short-term behavioral response, but not to the extent where natural behavioral patterns would beabandoned or significantly altered. Helicopter overflights are not expected to result in chronic stressbecause it is extremely unlikely that individual animals would be repeatedly exposed. Helicopteroverflights may affect ESA-listed marine mammals, but are not expected to result in Level A or Level Bharassment as defined by the MMPA. In accordance with NEPA, helicopter overflights over territorialwaters would have no significant impact on marine mammals. Furthermore, helicopter overflights overnon-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to marine mammals in accordance withEO 12114.Towed Mine Warfare (MIW) DevicesAs described in Section 2 and Appendix D, Mine Warfare Exercises conducted in the Study Area includethe use of various underwater mine detection and countermeasures systems that are towed through thewater by helicopters flying approximately 75 feet above the water at low airspeeds. Under the No ActionAlternative, this training would occur in the lower Chesapeake Bay and portions of the OPAREA that areclosest to the Bay (areas that are within 45 nm of NS Norfolk, see Figures 2.2-2, 2.2-3, and 2.2-4). Basedon occurrence data and habitat preferences described in Section 3.7.3, blue, sei, and sperm whales are notexpected to occur in areas where towed MIW devices would be used. In addition, manatees are notexpected to occur in these areas because they prefer shallow nearshore waters. Use of towed MIWdevices under the No Action Alternative would have no effect on the blue whale, sei whale, sperm whale,and manatee.While the potential exists for marine mammals to be struck by a towed MIW device, there are nodocumented instances of this occurring in the Study Area. Helicopter crew members monitor the water'ssurface during training to identify and avoid any objects that might damage the equipment. Based on thelow flight altitudes and relatively slow air speeds, it is likely that crew members would be able see marinemammals at or near the surface and avoid them. Marine mammals at or near the surface would likely seeor hear the oncoming helicopter or feel the downdraft, which could initiate avoidance behavior. Thewater column disturbance and sound created by the towed MIW device would likely elicit short-termbehavioral responses similar to those discussed for vessel movements and aircraft overflights.The use of towed MIW devices under the No Action Alternative may affect fin, humpback, NorthAtlantic right whales, but the potential effects of collisions would be discountable because they areextremely unlikely to occur. The use of towed MIW devices is not expected to result in Level A or LevelB harassment as defined by the MMPA. In accordance with NEPA, towed device use in territorial waterswould have no significant impact on marine mammals. Furthermore, towed device use in non-territorialwaters would not cause significant harm to marine mammals in accordance with EO 12114.Weapons Firing/Non-explosive Practice Munitions UseNon-explosive Practice Munitions StrikesCurrent Navy training operations in the VACAPES Study Area include firing a variety of weapons andemploy a variety of non-explosive practice munitions and explosive rounds, including bombs, missiles,naval gun shells, cannon shells, small caliber ammunition, and grenades. The majority of ordnance firedin the Study Area consists of non-explosive practice munitions (Table 2.2-6). The analysis presented inthis section focuses on non-explosive practice munitions, while potential effects of explosive rounds areanalyzed below in the explosions section. Training exercises that involve weapons firing and ordnance3-229 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsuse take place in several training areas (see Table 2.2-6 for a summary of ordnance use by training area).Ordnance use is not authorized in W-110 and W-387 (approximately 4,168 nm 2 ) or the lower ChesapeakeBay. The manatee is only expected to occur in nearshore, shallow waters of the Chesapeake Bay wereordnance is not used. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no effect on the manatee.Direct ordnance strikes and disturbance associated with sound from firing are potential stressors to otherlisted marine mammals. Ingestion of expended ordnance is also a potential concern for some marinemammals and is analyzed below under military expended materials. The primary concern is potentialexposure of marine mammals at or near the water's surface, which could result in injury or mortality.The potential for marine mammals to be struck by fired ordnance was evaluated using statisticalprobability modeling as described in Appendix I. Model input values include ordnance use data(frequency and type) and marine mammal density data for each season and training area where ordnanceuse occurs. The model first calculates the probability of a marine mammal being struck and thencalculates the number of exposures (marine mammal/ordnance strikes) for the given season and trainingarea. The model outputs for marine mammal/ordnance strikes are biased by the following assumptionsand data/model limitations: The model is two-dimensional and assumes that all marine mammals would be at or near the surface100 percent of the time, when in fact, marine mammals spend up to 90 percent of their time under thewater (Costa, 1993). The model does not take into account standard mitigation measures used by the Navy to avoid andminimize marine mammal/ordnance strikes. The model assumes the animal is stationary and does not account for any movement of the marinemammal or any potential avoidance of the training.The ordnance strike model is not expected to produce false negatives because the assumptions will morelikely produce an overestimate of impacts. A model output of less than one exposure provides a highlevel of certainty that marine mammals would not be struck and that ordnance strikes would have noeffect on marine mammals.Appendix I provides a breakdown of the model input/output values for each group of marine mammals(for which density estimates are available) by training area where ordnance is fired or released. All modeloutput values are substantially less than one (Appendix I), indicating that marine mammal/ordnancestrikes are extremely unlikely to occur. The probability of a direct ordnance strike is further reduced byNavy mitigation measures (see Chapter 5). Non-explosive practice munitions would have no effect onmarine mammals. In accordance with NEPA, non-explosive practice munitions use in territorial waterswould have no significant impact on marine mammals. Furthermore, non-explosive practice munitionsuse in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to marine mammals.Weapons Firing DisturbanceTransmitted Gunnery SoundA gun fired from a ship on the surface of the water propagates a blast wave away from the gun muzzle.This spherical blast wave reflects off and diffracts around objects in its path. As the blast wave hits thewater, it reflects back into the air, transmitting a sound pulse back into the water in proportions related tothe angle at which it hits the water.Propagating energy is transmitted into the water in a finite region below the gun. A critical angle (about13°, as measured from the vertical) can be calculated to determine the region of transmission in relation toa ship and gun (DoN, 2006).3-230 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsThe largest proposed shell size for these operations is a five-inch shell. This will produce the highestpressure and all analysis will be done using this as a conservative measurement of produced andtransmitted pressure, assuming that all other smaller ammunition sizes would fall under these levels.Aboard the USS Cole in June 2000, a series of pressure measurements were taken during the firing of afive-inch gun. Average pressure measured approximately 200 decibels (dB) with reference pressure ofone micro Pascal (dB re: 1 μPa) at the point of the air and water interface. Based on the USS Cole data,down-range peak pressure levels were calculated to be less than 186 dB re: 1 μPa at 100 m (DoN, 2000)and as the distance increases, the pressure would decrease.In reference to the energy flux density (EFD) harassment criteria, the EFD levels (greatest in any1/3 octave band above 10 Hz) of a 5-inch gun muzzle blast were calculated to be 190 dB with referencepressure of one micropascal squared in one second (dB re: 1 μPa2-sec) directly below the gun muzzledecreasing to 170 dB re: 1 μPa2-sec at 100 m (328 feet) into the water (DoN, 2006). The rapiddissipation of the sound pressure wave coupled with the mitigation measures implemented by the Navy(see Chapter 5 for details) to detect marine mammals in the area prior to conducting operations, wouldresult in a blast from a gun muzzle having no effect on marine mammal species listed under the ESA. Inaccordance with NEPA there would be no significant impact to marine mammals from transmittedgunnery sound during training exercises within territorial waters. In accordance with EO 12114, therewould be no significant harm to marine mammals resulting from transmitted gunnery sound duringtraining exercises in non-territorial waters.Sound Transmitted Through Ship HullA gun blast will also transmit sound waves through the structure of the ship which can propagate into thewater. The 2000 study aboard the USS Cole also examined the rate of sound pressure propagationthrough the hull of a ship (DoN, 2000). The structurally borne component of the sound consisted of lowleveloscillations on the pressure time histories that preceded the main pulse, due to the air blastimpinging on the water (DoN, 2006).The structural component for a standard round was calculated to be 6.19 percent of the air blast(DoN, 2006). Given that this component of a gun blast was a small portion of the sound propagated intothe water from a gun blast, and far less than the sound from the gun muzzle itself, the transmission ofsound from a gun blast through the ship’s hull would have no effect on species listed under the ESA. Inaccordance with NEPA there would be no significant impact to marine mammals from sound transmittedthrough a ship hull during training exercises within territorial waters. In accordance with EO 12114, therewould be no significant harm to marine mammals resulting from sound transmitted through a ship hullduring training exercises in non-territorial waters.Underwater Detonations and Explosive Ordnance UseOverviewExplosions that occur in the OPAREA are associated with training exercises that use explosive ordnance,including bombs (BOMBEX), missiles (MISSILEX), 5-in. explosive naval gun shells with IMPASS(FIREX), as well as underwater detonations associated with Mine Neutralization training (MINEX).Explosive ordnance use is limited to specific training areas (see Table 2.2-7 for a summary of explosionsby training area and Figure 3.7-6 for a summary of the areas involved). Explosive ordnance would not beused in the lower Chesapeake Bay or within 3 nm of the Atlantic Ocean shoreline under any of thealternatives. Therefore, underwater detonations and explosive ordance use would have no effect on themanatee.3-231 March 2009

Central-Corrid or76°W75°W74°W73°W39°ND. C.ANNAPOLISMilfordWildwood39°NCambridgeDELAWARESeafordLewesRehoboth BeachAir-AAtlantic CityOPAREANAS Patuxent RiverLexington ParkMARYLANDPrincess AnneOcean CityAir-BAir-C38°NAir-DAir-EAir-F38°NNASAWallops IslandW-386VIRGINIA3 nm State Limitit12 nm Territorial LimAir-GAir-HAir-K7C 7D 8C 8DVACAPES OPAREAAir-IAir-JW-387A/B37°NNEWPORTNEWSNS NorfolkNAB Little Creek37°NNORFOLKPORTSMOUTHNAS OceanaVIRGINIABEACHW50AW50BW-387A: SFC-FL240W-387B: FL240-UNLNORTH CAROLINAW50CW-72A(1)Air-1AAir-2AW-72A(2)North-CorridorAir-1BAir-1CW-72BAir-1DAir-1EAir-1FAir-2BSouth-CorridorAir-2C36°NNags HeadAir-3AAir-2D36°NAir-2EAir-3BAir-2FAir-3CStumpy PointAir-3D35°NPiney Island3 nm State Limitit12 nm Territorial LimW-110Air-3E35°NCherry PointOPAREAATLANTICOCEAN34°N34°N76°W75°W74°W73°WPAMDWVVANCSCDENJLegendVACAPES OPAREAWarning Area (W)Air Grid3 nm Territorial Limit12 nm Territorial LimitBOMBEX (Air-K; Air-3B)MINEX (W-50)FIREX Preferred (1C1/2; 7C/D & 8C/D)FIREX Secondary (5C/D)MISSILEX-Hellfire Missiles (Air-K, W-72A(2))Maverick Missile Training Area (Air-K)0 12.5 25 50 75 100Nautical MilesFigure 3.7-6Underwater Explosive OrdnanceAreas in the VACAPESStudy Area for No Actionand Alternative 1VACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-232

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsAn explosive analysis was conducted to estimate the number of marine mammals that could be exposed toimpacts from explosions. Appendix J contains a technical report describing the scientific basis, methods,assumptions, and all results of the explosive analysis. Tables 3.7-14 and 3.7-15 provide summaries ofthe explosive analysis results for the No Action Alternative.Effects from exposure to explosives vary depending on the level of exposure. Behavioral responses caninclude shorter surfacings, shorter dives, fewer blows per surfacing, longer intervals between blows(breaths), ceasing or increasing vocalizations, shortening or lengthening vocalizations, and changingfrequency or intensity of vocalizations (NRC, 2005). However, it is not known how these responsesrelate to significant effects (e.g., long-term effects or population consequences) (NRC, 2005). In addition,animals exposed to thresholds that equate to a temporary threshold shift (TTS), may experience a slight,recoverable loss of hearing sensitivity.Exposures that result in long-term injuries such as permanent threshold shift (PTS) may limit an animal’sability to find food, communicate with other animals, and/or interpret the environment around them.Impairment of these abilities can decrease an individual’s chance of survival or impact their ability tosuccessfully reproduce. Mortality of an animal will remove the animal entirely from the population aswell as eliminate any future reproductive potential.TABLE 3.7-14SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM SINGLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—NOSpecies/Training OperationACTION ALTERNATIVEPotentialExposures@ 182 dBre 1 Pa 2 -sor23 psi (peak)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msFin whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Humpback whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0North Atlantic right whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Sperm whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Atlantic Spotted dolphinBOMBEX training 10 1 0MISSILEX Training 4 0 0MINEX Training 0 0 0Total Exposures 14 1 03-233 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-14SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM SINGLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—NOACTION ALTERNATIVE (Continued)Species/Training Operation PotentialExposures@ 182 dBre 1 Pa 2 -sor23 psi (peak)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msBeaked whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Bottlenose dolphinBOMBEX training 23 2 0MISSILEX Training 6 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 29 2 0Clymene dolphinBOMBEX training 2 0 0MISSILEX Training 1 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 3 0 0Common dolphinBOMBEX training 169 7 1MISSILEX Training 92 2 1MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 261 9 2Kogia spp.BOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Minke whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Pantropical spotted dolphinBOMBEX training 4 0 0MISSILEX Training 3 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 7 0 0Pilot whalesBOMBEX training 4 0 0MISSILEX Training 2 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 6 0 0Risso’s dolphinBOMBEX training 3 0 0MISSILEX Training 3 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 6 0 03-234 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-14SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM SINGLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—NOACTION ALTERNATIVE (Continued)Species/Training Operation PotentialExposures@ 182 dBre 1 Pa 2 -sor23 psi (peak)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msRough-toothed dolphinBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Striped dolphinBOMBEX training 41 2 0MISSILEX Training 33 1 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 74 2 0TABLE 3.7-15SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM MULTIPLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—NOACTION ALTERNATIVESpecies/Training OperationPotentialExposures@ 177 dBre 1 Pa 2 -s(multipledetonations only)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msFin whaleBOMBEX training 44 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 44 0 0Humpback whaleBOMBEX training 25 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 25 0 0North Atlantic right whaleBOMBEX training 4 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 4 0 0Sperm whaleBOMBEX training 98 1 0FIREX training 2 0 0Total Exposures 100 1 0Atlantic Spotted dolphinBOMBEX training 5,303 80 0FIREX training 30 1 0Total Exposures 5,333 81 0Beaked whaleBOMBEX training 11 0 0FIREX training 0 0 03-235 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-15SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM MULTIPLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—NOACTION ALTERNATIVE (Continued)Species/Training Operation PotentialExposures@ 177 dBre 1 Pa 2 -s(multipledetonations only)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msTotal Exposures 11 0 0Bottlenose dolphinBOMBEX training 11,131 166 0FIREX training 5 0 0Total Exposures 11,136 166 0Clymene dolphinBOMBEX training 362 3 0FIREX training 1 0 0Total Exposures 363 3 0Common dolphinBOMBEX training 36,235 373 4FIREX training 37 1 0Total Exposures 36,272 374 4Kogia spp.BOMBEX training 34 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 34 0 0Minke whaleBOMBEX training 1 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 1 0 0Pantropical spotted dolphinBOMBEX training 757 7 0FIREX training 2 0 0Total Exposures 759 7 0Pilot whalesBOMBEX training 1,776 24 0FIREX training 7 0 0Total Exposures 1,783 24 0Risso’s dolphinBOMBEX training 593 5 0FIREX training 3 0 0Total Exposures 596 5 0Rough-toothed dolphinBOMBEX training 16 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 16 0 0Striped dolphinBOMBEX training 6,746 53 1FIREX training 41 2 0Total Exposures 6,787 55 13-236 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsSummary of Exposure Results for Individual Marine MammalsFin, humpback, North Atlantic right, sperm whales, Atlantic spotted dolphins, beaked whales, bottlenosedolphins, Clymene dolphins, common dolphins, Kogia spp., minke whales, pantropical spotted dolphins,pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, rough-toothed dolphins, and striped dolphins may be exposed at levels thatcould result in behavioral disturbance (Table 3.7-15, 177 dB column). Atlantic spotted dolphins,bottlenose dolphins, Clymene dolphins, common dolphins, pantropical spotted dolphins, pilot whales,Risso’s dolphins, and striped dolphins may be exposed at levels that could result in temporary thresholdshift, or non-injurious physiological effects (Table 3.7-14, 182 dB column). Sperm whales, Atlanticspotted dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, Clymene dolphins, common dolphins, pantropical spotted dolphins,pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, and striped dolphins may be exposed at levels that could result inpermanent threshold shift, or injurious physiological effects (Tables 3.7-14 and 3.7-15, 205 dB column).Common dolphins and striped dolphins may be exposed to levels that would result in mortality (Tables3.7-14 and 3.7-15, 30.5 psi column).Exposure estimates could not be calculated for several species (blue whale, sei whale, Bryde’s whale,killer whale, pygmy killer whale, false killer whale, melon-headed whale, spinner dolphin, Fraser’sdolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, and harbor porpoise) because density data could not be calculateddue to the limited available data for these species. However, the likelihood of exposure should be evenlower than that estimated for other species with given densities since they are less likely to occur in theStudy Area. The mitigation measures presented in Chapter 5 would further lower the likelihood ofexposure. Therefore, no exposures are expected for blue whale, sei whale, Bryde’s whale, killer whale,pygmy killer whale, false killer whale, melon-headed whale, spinner dolphin, Fraser’s dolphin, Atlanticwhite-sided dolphin, and harbor porpoise.The mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 are designed to reduce exposure of marine mammals topotential impacts to achieve the least practicable adverse affect on marine mammal species orpopulations. Lookouts will monitor the area before ordnance is used. Fin, humpback whales, and spermwhales will have high detections rates at the surface because of their large body size and pronouncedblows. Because of large group sizes, it is likely that lookouts would detect Atlantic spotted dolphins,bottlenose dolphins, Clymene, common, pantropical spotted dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, and roughtootheddolphins. Implementation of mitigation measures will likely reduce the potential effects to marinemammals.Effects on Marine Mammal PopulationsEffects from the use of explosive ordnance are not anticipated to have lasting impacts on any marinemammal population due to the following factors: Most exposures are within the non-injurious TTS or behavioral effects zones. Effects associated withthese exposures are expected to be temporary. The exposure analysis predicts that only two species would be exposed to levels that could potentiallyresult in mortality (six potential mortality exposures for common dolphin and one for striped dolphin).These species are among the most abundant marine mammals in the Study Area and the small numberof potential mortality exposures would be negligible from a population standpoint. Although the numbers presented in Tables 3.7-14 and 3.7-15 represent estimated harassment andinjury, as described above, they are probably over estimates as the model calculates harassmentwithout taking into consideration standard mitigation measures.3-237 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsEndangered Species Act ConclusionsUnderwater detonations and explosive ordnance in No Action Alternative may affect fin, North Atlanticright whales, sei, blue, humpback, and sperm whales. Underwater detonations and explosive ordnance usein the No Action Alternative may affect fin, North Atlantic right, sei, blue, humpback, and sperm whales.However, the effects on blue and sei whales are most likely discountable based on the low likelihood ofencountering these species in the Study Area. Underwater detonations and explosive ordnance use wouldhave no effect on the manatee because these exercises take place greater than 3 nm offshore wheremanatees are not expected to occur.Marine Mammal Protection Act ConclusionsFin whales, humpback whales, North Atlantic right whales, sperm whales, Atlantic spotted dolphins,beaked whales, bottlenose dolphins, Clymene dolphins, common dolphins, Kogia spp., minke whales,pantropical spotted dolphins, pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, rough-toothed dolphins and striped dolphinsmay be exposed at levels that would constitute Level B harassment under the MMPA. Sperm whales,Atlantic spotted dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, Clymene dolphin, common dolphin, pantropical spotteddolphins, pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, and striped dolphins may be exposed at levels that wouldconstitute Level A harassment under the MMPA. Common and striped dolphins may be exposed to levelsthat would result in mortality.National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114 ConclusionsThe analysis presented above indicates that underwater detonations and explosive ordnance use under theNo Action Alternative would affect individual marine mammals, but any effects observed at thepopulation, stock, or species level would be negligible. Therefore, in accordance with NEPA, therewould be no significant impact to marine mammal populations from explosive ordnance use duringtraining exercises within territorial waters. In accordance with EO 12114, there would be no significantharm to marine mammal populations resulting from explosive ordnance use during training exercises innon-territorial waters.Military Expended MaterialsOrdnance Related MaterialsOrdnance related materials include various sizes of non-explosive practice munitions and shrapnel fromexplosive rounds (Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-6). These solid metal materials would quickly move through thewater column and settle to the sea floor. The analyses presented in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.3 indicate thatthese materials would become encrusted by natural processes and incorporated into the seafloor, with nosignificant accumulations in any particular area and no negative effects to water quality. However,benthic foraging marine mammals could be exposed to expended ordnance through ingestion. Ingestionof expended ordnance is not expected to occur in the water column because ordnance quickly sinks.Some materials such as an intact non-explosive training bomb would be too large to be ingested by amarine mammal, but many materials such as cannon shells, small caliber ammunition, and shrapnel aresmall enough to be ingested. Records indicate that generally metal debris ingested by marine mammalsare small (e.g., fishhooks, bottle caps, metal spring; (Walker and Coe, 1990; Laist, 1997). The effects ofingesting solid metal objects on marine mammals are unknown. A documented instance indicates thatcertain types of metal debris, in this case a lead sinker, may cause toxicosis in marine mammals (Zabka etal., 2006). Ordnance materials, made of different alloys than a sinker, would not necessarily cause asimilar physiological reaction. Extensive literature searches reveal no studies related to potential toxiceffects of ingestion of types of ordnance used in these exercises by marine mammals.Another instance oflead toxicosis was documented in a captive bottlenose dolphin that had ingested 55 air gun pellets (whichcontain 40% lead) resulting in mortality (Schlosberg et al. 1997). Expended ordnance which contains lead3-238 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsmay have the potential to induce toxicosis in marine mammals in some circumstances. Ingestion ofmarine debris in general can also cause digestive tract blockages or damage the digestive system(Gorzelany, 1998; Stamper et al., 2006). Relatively small objects with smooth edges such a cannon shellor small caliber ammunition might pass through the digestive tract without causing harm, while a piece ofmetal shrapnel with sharp edges would be more likely to cause damage.The potential for ordnance ingestion depends on species-specific feeding habitats. Manatees would notingest ordnance because they feed on seagrass beds along the coast where ordnance is not used. Blue, fin,North Atlantic right, and sei whales feed at the surface or in the water column and would not ingestordnance from the bottom. While humpback whales feed predominantly by lunging through the waterafter krill and fish, there have been instances of humpback whales disturbing the bottom in an attempt toflush prey, the northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) (Hain et al., 1995). This behavior has beenobserved on Stellwagen Bank off eastern Massachusetts. Although observations of humpback whalesfeeding in mid-Atlantic waters (Swingle et al., 1993; Smith et al., 1996) have led to the supposition that asupplemental winter feeding ground may exist in the U.S. mid-Atlantic (Barco et al., 2002), humpbackwhale feeding primarily takes place farther north than the OPAREA (CETAP, 1982; Whitehead, 1982;Kenney and Winn, 1986; Weinrich et al., 1997). Humpback whales are not expected to ingest ordnancebecause feeding in the OPAREA would be limited and they primarily feed in the water column.Ordnance ingestion under the No Action Alternative would have no effect on the manatee, blue whale, finwhale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, or sei whale.Although sperm whales feed predominantly on cephalopods, they also frequently feed on or near thebottom (Whitehead et al., 1992). In doing so, animals will ingest non-food items such as rocks and sand(NMFS, 2006d). Sperm whales are known to incidentally ingest foreign objects while foraging (Walkerand Coe, 1990), suggesting that the potential exists to ingest debris that has settled on the ocean floor as aresult of the proposed activities. However, about 79 percent of all ordnance (based on number of rounds)would be expended west of the continental shelf break under the No Action Alternative. Sperm whalesdisplay a strong offshore preference (Rice, 1989) and are mostly associated with waters over thecontinental shelf edge, continental slope, and offshore waters (CETAP 1982; Hain et al., 1985; Smith etal., 1996; Waring et al., 2001; Davis et al., 2002). Consequently, the likelihood that a sperm whalewould encounter and subsequently ingest a piece of expended ordnance is extremely low. Ordnanceingestion under the No Action Alternative may affect sperm whales, but the effects would be considereddiscountable because ingestion is extremely unlikely to occur.Most non-listed marine mammal species feed at the surface or in the water column and would have a littlechance of encountering expended ordnance on the bottom. Baleen and toothed whales and harbor seals,which feed at the surface or in the water column, would not be expected to ingest ordnance from thebottom. Beaked whales have exhibited bottom feeding behavior using suction feeding techniques(MacLeod et al., 2003) and are known to incidentally ingest foreign objects while foraging (Walker andCoe, 1990). Although the potential exists for ingestion of expended ordnance, the amount of ordnancethat an animal would encounter is low. In addition, an animal would not likely ingest every piece ofordnance that it encounters. Thus, it is unlikely that an animal would both encounter and ingest ordnance.Ordnance related materials are not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment as defined by theMMPA. In accordance with NEPA, ordnance related materials would have no significant impact onmarine mammals in territorial waters. Furthermore, ordnance related materials would not causesignificant harm to marine mammals in non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.Target Related MaterialsA variety of at-sea targets are used in the OPAREA, ranging from high-tech remotely operated airborneand surface targets (e.g., airborne drones and Seaborne Powered Targets) to low-tech floating at-sea3-239 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalstargets (e.g., inflatable targets, 55-gallon metal drums) and towed banners. Many of the targets aredesigned to be recovered for reuse and are not destroyed during training because ordnance is set todetonate before impacting the target. The only expendable airborne targets used in the OPAREA areTactical Air-Launched Decoys, which are non-powered, constructed of extruded aluminum, weigh about400 pounds, and are about 7 feet long. Expendable targets such as floating at-sea inflatable targets arerecovered after use and properly disposed of onshore. Some targets such as 55-gallon metal drums cannotbe recovered and sink to the sea floor after use. Unrecoverable floating materials generated by target useare expected to be minimal. Descriptions of the targets used in the OPAREA and information on fate andtransport are provided in Section 3.2.As discussed above for ordnance related materials, species that feed on or near the bottom (i.e., spermwhales and beaked whales) may encounter an expended target while feeding; however, the size of thetarget would prohibit any listed species from ingesting it. Therefore, the use of targets under the NoAction Alternative would have no effect on listed marine mammals. Targets are not expected to result inLevel A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA. In accordance with NEPA, targets would haveno significant impact on marine mammals in territorial waters. Furthermore, targets would not causesignificant harm to marine mammals in non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.Chaff Fibers, End-caps, and PistonsRadiofrequency chaff (chaff) is an electronic countermeasure designed to reflect radar waves and obscureaircraft, ships, and other equipment from radar tracking sources. Chaff is composed of an aluminum alloycoating on glass fibers of silicon dioxide. The coating is about 99.4 percent aluminum by weight andcontains negligible amounts of silicon, iron, copper, manganese, magnesium, zinc, vanadium, andtitanium (USAF, 1997). These aluminum-coated glass fibers (about 60% silica and 40% aluminum byweight) range in lengths of 0.8 to 7.5-cm with a diameter of about 40 micrometers. Chaff is released ordispensed from military vehicles in cartridges or projectiles that contain millions of chaff fibers. Whendeployed, a diffuse cloud of fibers is formed that is undetectable to the human eye. Chaff is a very lightmaterial that can remain suspended in air anywhere from 10 minutes to 10 hours and can travelconsiderable distances from its release point, depending on prevailing atmospheric conditions (USAF,1997; Arfsten et al., 2002). Doppler radar has tracked chaff plumes containing approximately 900 gramsof chaff drifting 200 miles from the point of release with the plume covering a volume of greater than 400cubic miles (Arfsten et al., 2002).Various types of chaff systems are used in the OPAREA. Fixed-wing aircraft use RR-144A/AL chaffcartridges, which contain about 150 grams of chaff or about five million fibers. For each cartridge used, aplastic end-cap and Plexiglas piston is released into the environment in addition to the chaff fibers. Theend-cap and piston are both round and are 1.3 inches in diameter and 0.13 inches thick (Spargo, 2007).As summarized in Table 3.7-16, a total of 18,000 RR-144A/AL cartridges would be used per year in W-72 and W-386 under the No Action Alternative. The amount of chaff used on any given day varies basedon scheduled training events and could range from 0 to 360 cartridges per day.Ships use MK-214 or MK-216 Super Rapid Off-board Chaff. The MK-214 contains about 11 kg of chaffor more than 360 million fibers, while the MK-216 contains about 7.6 kg of chaff or more than 250million fibers. As summarized in Table 3.7-14, a total of 198 MK-214 and MK-216 cartridges would beused per year in W-72 and W-386.Based on the dispersion characteristics of chaff, large areas of open water within the OPAREA would beexposed to chaff, but the chaff concentrations would be low. For example, Hullar et al. (1999) calculatedthat a 4.97 miles by 7.46 miles (37.1 mi 2 or 28 nm 2 ) area would be affected by deployment of a singlecartridge containing 150 grams of chaff. The resulting chaff concentration would be about 5.4 g/nm 2 .3-240 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsThis corresponds to less than 179,000 fibers/nm 2 or less than 0.005 fibers/ft 2 , assuming that each canistercontains five million fibers.2TABLE 3.7-16CHAFF USE (PER YEAR) AND RELATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCENTRATIONSPER ALTERNATIVE THAT COULD OCCUR UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTIONAnnual Chaff Use andNo Action Alternative 1 AlternativeRelative Concentration 1W-72 - RR-144A/AL CartridgesNumber of Cartridges 15,063 16,596 16,596Chaff Released (kg/year) 2,259 2,489 2,489Relative Chaff Concentration (kg/nm 2 /year) 0.152 0.168 0.168Relative Chaff Concentration (fibers/nm 2 /year) 1 5,075,477 5,592,021 5,592,021Number of End-caps and Pistons 30,126 33,192 33,192Relative End-cap/Piston Concentration2.0 2.2 2.2(pieces/nm 2 /year) 1W-386 - RR-144A/AL CartridgesNumber of Cartridges 2,937 3,554 3,554Chaff Released (kg/year) 441 533 533Relative Chaff Concentration (kg/nm 2 /year) 0.046 0.055 0.055Relative Chaff Concentration (fibers/nm 2 /year) 1 1,519,400 1,838,593 1,838,593Number of End-caps and Pistons 5,874 7,108 7,108Relative End-cap/Piston Concentration0.6 0.7 0.7(pieces/nm 2 /year) 1Total RR-144A/AL CartridgesNumber of Cartridges 18,000 20,150 20,150Chaff Released (kg/year) 2,700 3,023 3,023Number of End-caps and Pistons 36,000 40,300 40,300W-72 – MK-214 and MK-216 CartridgesNumber of Cartridges 29 33 33Chaff Released (kg/year) 295 336 336Relative Chaff Concentration (kg/nm 2 /year) 1 0.022 0.025 0.025Relative Chaff Concentration (fibers/nm 2 /year) 1 727,092 827,433 827,433W-386 – MK-214 and MK-216 CartridgesNumber of Cartridges 169 189 189Chaff Released (kg/year) 1,720 1,923 1,923Relative Chaff Concentration (kg/nm 2 /year) 1 0.178 0.199 0.199Relative Chaff Concentration (fibers/nm 2 /year) 1 5,930,678 6,630,798 6,630,798Total MK-214 and MK-216 CartridgesNumber of Cartridges 198 222 222Chaff Released (kg/year) 2,015 2,259 2,2591 Concentration based on even dispersion in W-72 (14,839 nm 2 ) and W-386 (9,665 nm 2 ).The chaff concentrations that marine life could be exposed to following release of multiple cartridges(e.g., following a single day of training) is difficult to accurately estimate because it depends on severalunknown factors. First of all, specific release points are not recorded and tend to be random, and chaffdispersion in air depends on prevailing atmospheric conditions. After falling from the air, chaff fiberswould be expected to float on the sea surface for some period of time depending on wave and windaction. The fibers would be dispersed further by sea currents as they float and slowly sink toward the3-241 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsbottom. Chaff concentrations in benthic habitats following release of a single cartridge would be lowerthan the values noted above based on dispersion by currents and the enormous dilution capacity of thereceiving waters. Some fibers may become entrained in Sargassum mats and remain at or near thesurface for longer periods of time. Consequently, chaff concentrations in Sargassum mats might behigher than those in the water column or on the bottom.Table 3.7-16 summarizes changes in chaff use and relative environmental concentrations that could occurunder the proposed action. Note that the relative environmental concentrations presented in Table 3.7-16are based on the assumption that the chaff would be evenly distributed in the area where it is used, and areprimarily presented for comparison purposes. Actual concentrations would depend on the factorsdiscussed above and would be dynamic. Nonetheless, actual chaff concentrations are expected to be low.For example, a chaff concentration of 1.8 fibers/ft 2 would be expected given a totally unrealistic (worstcase)assumption of simultaneous release of 360 RR-144A/AL chaff cartridges at a single release point.Several literature reviews and controlled experiments have indicated that chaff poses little environmentrisk except at concentrations substantially higher than those that could reasonably occur from militarytraining use (Arfsten et al., 2002, Hullar et al., 1999, and USAF, 1997). Nonetheless, some marinemammal species within the OPAREA could be exposed to chaff through direct body contact, inhalation,and ingestion. As discussed in more detail below, chemical alteration of water and sediment resultingfrom decomposition of chaff fibers is not expected to result in exposure. Manatees would not be exposedto measurable concentrations of chaff because chaff use is limited to the OPAREA and manatees are onlyexpected to occur in shallow, nearshore waters of the lower Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, chaff is notconsidered a potential stressor to manatees and chaff use under the No Action Alternative would have noeffect on manatees.Based on the dispersion characteristics of chaff it is likely that marine mammals would occasionally comein direct contact with chaff fibers while at the water's surface and while submerged, but such contactwould be inconsequential. Chaff is similar in form to fine human hair (USAF, 1997). Due to its flexiblenature and softness, external contact with chaff would not be expected to adversely affect most wildlife(USAF, 1997) and the fibers would quickly wash off shortly after contact. Given the properties of chaff,skin irritation is not expected to be a problem (USAF, 1997).The potential exits for marine mammals to inhale chaff fibers if they are at the surface while chaff isairborne. Arfsten et al. (2002), Hullar et al. (1999), and USAF (1997) reviewed the potential effects ofchaff inhalation on humans, livestock, and animals and concluded that the fibers are too large to beinhaled into the lung. If inhaled, the fibers are predicted to be deposited in the nose, mouth, or tracheaand are either swallowed or expelled. However, these reviews did not specifically consider marinemammals. It is possible that marine mammals, particularly large whales, could inhale chaff fibers into thelung based on their size and respiratory system characteristics. In terrestrial environments chaff fiberscould break into smaller particles by various physical processes. If resuspended, the small particles couldbe available for inhalation (USAF, 1997). However, this is not a concern in the marine environmentbecause chaff fibers would not break up on the water's surface or be resuspended. Any effects of chaffinhalation on marine mammals are considered insignificant given, the low concentration of airborne fibers(1.8 fibers/ft 2 for a worst-case scenario of 360 chaff cartridges simultaneously released at a single droppoint), and the fact that marine mammals spend significant time submerged.Based on the small size of chaff fibers, it appears unlikely that marine mammals would confuse the fiberswith prey items or purposefully feed on chaff fibers. However, marine mammals could occasionallyingest low concentrations of chaff incidentally from the surface, water column, or sea floor. While nostudies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of chaff ingestion on marine mammals, the effects areexpected to be negligible based the low concentrations that could reasonably be ingested, the small size of3-242 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalschaff fibers, and available data on the toxicity of chaff and aluminum. In laboratory studies conducted bythe University of Delaware (Systems Consultants, 1977), blue crabs and killifish were fed a food-chaffmixture daily for several weeks and no significant mortality was observed at the highest exposuretreatment (1,000 times the exposure level expected to be found in Chesapeake Bay). Similar results werefound when chaff was added directly to exposure chambers containing filter-feeding menhaden.Histological examination indicated no damage by chaff exposures. A study on calves (cattle) that werefed chaff found no evidence of digestive disturbance or other clinical symptoms (USAF, 1997).Silicon dioxide, also known as silica, is an abundant compound in nature that is prevalent in soil, rocks,and sand (USAF, 1997). Silicon is the second most abundant element in the earth's crust, making upapproximately 28.2 percent by weight (Jefferson Lab, 2007). As such, the diet of benthic foraging marineanimals that routinely ingest sediment while feeding likely contains relatively high concentrations ofsilicon dioxide. Silicon dioxide is chemically unreactive in the environment (USEPA, 1991) and theacute and chronic oral toxicity of silicon dioxide is low. No significant toxicity or mortality has beenreported in animals given doses of up to 3,000 mg/kg of body weight per day (EVM, 2003). No observedadverse effect levels of 2,500 and 7,500 mg/kg of body weight per day were obtained for mice and rats,respectively in long-term studies (up to 24 months) (Takizawa et al., 1988).Aluminum is the third most abundant element in the earth's crust, making up approximately 8.2 percentby weight (Jefferson Lab, 2007). Similar to silicon dioxide, the diet of benthic foraging marine animalsthat routinely ingest sediment while feeding likely contains relatively high concentrations of aluminum.Aluminum toxicosis in domestic animals is largely expressed as secondary phosphorus deficiency,presumably because it binds phosphorus in an unabsorbable complex in the intestine (NRC, 1980). Signsof phosphorus deficiency have been observed in sheep, chicks, rats, and mice receiving high levels ofdietary aluminum (as summarized in NRC, 1980).Scheuhammer (1987) reviewed the metabolism and toxicology of aluminum in birds and terrestrialmammals. Intestinal absorption of orally ingested aluminum salts was very poor, and the small amountabsorbed was almost completely removed from the body by excretion in urine. Rates and mice presentedwith a moderately high dietary aluminum content (160 to 335 mg/kg) excreted most of it in the feces(NRC, 1980). However, aluminum can be deposited in the liver, skeleton, brain, and other tissues, andthe amount of aluminum retained is positively related to the amount consumed (NRC, 1980). Highconcentrations of aluminum have been found in the stomach content, liver, and brain of stranded graywhales (Varanasi et al., 1993) and in the stomach content of subsistence harvested (presumably healthy)gray whales (Tilbury, 2002), which appears to be consistent with the ingestion of sediments by thisbenthic foraging species. The aluminum concentrations in brain tissue of gray whales are within therange for some terrestrial mammals that may receive high concentrations of aluminum in their diets,suggesting a broad range in tolerance to aluminum in mammals (Varanasi et al., 1993).Dietary aluminum normally has small effects on healthy birds and terrestrial mammals, and often highconcentrations (>1,000 mg/kg) are needed to induce effects such as impaired bone development, reducedgrowth, and anemia (Nybo, 1996). Studies suggest that the maximum tolerable level of aluminum forcattle and sheep is about 1,000 mg/kg (of body weight) (NRC, 1980). A marine animal weighing 1 kgwould need to ingest more than 83,000 chaff fibers per day to receive a daily aluminum dose equal to1,000 mg/kg (based on chaff consisting of 40 percent aluminum by weight and a 150-g chaff canistercontaining 5 million fibers). An adult male sperm whale weighing 40,800 kg would need to ingest morethan 3 billion chaff fibers per day to receive a daily aluminum dose equal to 1,000 mg/kg. It is highlyunlikely that a marine mammal would ingest a toxic dose of chaff based on the anticipated environmentalconcentration of chaff (1.8 fibers/ft 2 for a worst-case scenario of 360 chaff cartridges simultaneouslyreleased at a single drop point).3-243 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsMarine mammals would not be indirectly affected by changes in water quality resulting from thedegradation of chaff in water. Any changes in water quality from chaff use would be negligible based onthe low concentration of chaff, the slow rate at which it degrades in saltwater (USAF, 1997), and theenormous dilution capacity of the receiving waters of the OPAREA. In addition, available data indicatethat chaff is relatively non-toxic in marine environments. Laboratory toxicity tests conducted using twomarine indicator organisms (mysid shrimp and sheepshead minnow) indicated that chaff is not acutelytoxic at concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/L (Haley and Kurnas, 1992). The bioavailability andtoxicity of aluminum is relatively low in marine environments compared to freshwater environmentsbecause of the high pH levels and high calcium and sodium concentrations in saltwater (Lydersen andLofgren, 2002). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not designated aluminum as a prioritypollutant and has not established ambient water quality criteria for aluminum in saltwater (USEPA, 2007).A review of numerous toxicological studies indicated that the principal components of chaff are unlikelyto have significant effects on humans and the environment based on the general toxicity of thecomponents, the dispersion patterns, and the unlikelihood of the components to interact with othersubstances in nature to produce synergistic toxic effects (USAF, 1997). In addition, available evidencesuggests that chaff use does not result in significant accumulation of aluminum in sediments afterprolonged training. Sediment samples collected from an area of the Chesapeake Bay where chaff hadbeen used for approximately 25 years indicated that aluminum concentrations in sediments were notsignificantly different than background concentrations (Wilson et al., 2002).Chaff cartridge plastic end-caps and pistons would also be released into the marine environment, wherethey would persist for long periods and could be ingested by marine mammals. Chaff end-caps andpistons sink in saltwater (Spargo, 2007), which reduces the likelihood of ingestion by marine mammals atthe surface or in the water column. As discussed above for ordnance related materials, the sperm whale isthe only listed marine mammal species that is expected to routinely forage on or near the bottom. Spermwhales have been known to ingest anthropogenic debris similar to the end-caps and pistons during thecourse of feeding (Walker and Coe, 1990; Laist, 1997); however, this does not always result in negativeconsequences to health or vitality (Walker and Coe, 1990). Walker and Coe (1990) theorized that forlarger animals, such as beaked whales, it would take a high volume of foreign debris to result in death ordebilitation resulting from impaction. This can be extrapolated to sperm whales as well.Based on the small size of chaff end-caps and pistons (1.3 inch diameter, 0.13 inch thick), it appearsunlikely that sperm whales would confuse them with prey items or purposefully feed on them. Thelikelihood of a sperm whale ingesting an end-cap or piston appears to be extremely low based on thenumber of pieces released per year (36,000), the low environmental concentration (0.6 to 2.0pieces/nm 2 /year, see Table 3.7-16), and the fact that sperm whale foraging is expected to be limited toareas east of the continental shelf break. If ingested, it is likely that the small (1.3 inch diameter, 0.13inch thick), round end-cap or piston would be excreted without causing harm. Sperm whales primarilyfeed on squid and their digestive systems are capable of excreting indigestible squid beaks. However,ingestion of foreign materials has been noted to result in negative consequences to marine mammals,including mortality, due to disruption of the digestive tract and/or intestinal blockage (Stamper et.al.2006; Gorzelany 1998). Documented instances of this are rare, particularly for smaller items (Laist 1997;Walker and Coe 1990). Although instances of impacts from ingestion of debris have been recorded, thelow concentration and minimal likelihood that a sperm whale would ingest an end-cap or piston make thepotential effects discountable.Chaff use under the proposed action may affect blue, fin, humpback, North Atlantic right, sei, and spermwhales. Chaff is not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA. Inaccordance with NEPA, chaff would have no significant impact on marine mammals in territorial waters.3-244 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsFurthermore, chaff would not cause significant harm to marine mammals in non-territorial waters inaccordance with EO 12114.Self-Protection FlaresSelf-protection flares consist of a magnesium/Teflon formulation that, when ignited and released from anaircraft, burn for a short period of time (less than 10 seconds) at very high temperatures. Flares releaseheat and light to disrupt tracking of Navy aircraft by enemy infrared tracking devices or weapons. Flaresare designed to burn completely. Under normal operations, the only material that would enter the waterwould be a small, round plastic end-cap (approximately 1.4 inch diameter). About 465 self-protectionflares would be used in the OPAREA (W-72 and W-386) per year under the No Action Alternative.An extensive literature review and controlled experiments conducted by the U.S. Air Force revealed thatself-protection flare use poses little risk to the environment or animals (USAF, 1997). Nonetheless,marine mammals within the OPAREA could be exposed to light generated by the flares and flare plasticend-caps. The light generated by flares would have no effect on marine mammals based on short burntime, relatively high altitudes where they are used, and the wide-spread and infrequent use. Flare endcapshave similar properties as chaff end-caps and pistons, therefore, the analysis of potential impactsfrom chaff end-caps and pistons is applicable to flare end-caps as well. Although instances of impactsfrom ingestion of debris have been recorded, the low concentration and minimal likelihood that a spermwhale would ingest an end-cap or piston make the potential effects discountable. Ingestion of flare endcapsunder the No Action Alternative may affect the sperm whale, but the effects would be considereddiscountable because ingestion is extremely unlikely to occur. Self-protection flares are not expected toresult in Level A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA. In accordance with NEPA, flareswould have no significant impact on marine mammals in territorial waters. Furthermore, flares would notcause significant harm to marine mammals in non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.Marine MarkersThe MK-25 and MK-58 marine markers produce chemical flames and regions of surface smoke and areused in various training exercises to mark a surface position to simulate divers, ships, and points ofcontact on the surface of the ocean. When the accompanying cartridge is broken, an area of smoke isreleased. The smoke dissipates in the air having little effect on the marine environment. The markerburns similar to a flare, producing a flame until all burn components have been used. While the lightgenerated from the marker is bright enough to be seen up to three miles away in ideal conditions, theresulting light would either be reflected off the water’s surface or would enter the water and attenuate inbrightness over depth. The point source of the light would be focused and be less intense than if ananimal were to look to the surface and encounter the direct path of the sun. The MK-25 is composed ofaluminum and contains either one or two seawater-activated batteries (depending on the model) and a redphosphorus pyrotechnic composition. The MK-25 marine marker is 18.5 inches long and 2.9 inches indiameter. It produces yellow flame and white smoke for 10 to 20 minutes (The Ordnance Shop, 2007).The MK-58 is composed of tin and contains two red phosphorus pyrotechnic candles and a seawateractivatedbattery. The MK-58 marine marker is 21.78 inches long and 5.03 inches in diameter, weighs12.8 pounds, and produces a yellow flame and white smoke for a minimum of 40 minutes and amaximum of 60 minutes (The Ordnance Shop, 2007). The markers themselves are not designed to berecovered and would eventually sink to the bottom and become encrusted and/or incorporated into thesediments. Approximately 300 marine markers would be used in the Study Area per year under the NoAction Alternative.It is unlikely that marine mammals would be exposed to any chemicals that produce either flames orsmoke since these components are consumed in their entirety during the burning process. Animals areunlikely to approach and/or get close enough to the flame to be exposed to any chemical components.3-245 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsExpended marine markers are a potential ingestion hazard for marine mammals while they are floating orafter they sink to the bottom. However, the probability of ingestion is extremely low based on the lownumber of marine markers expended per year (300) and the low concentration (0.01/nm 2 /year). Marinemarker ingestion under the No Action Alternative may affect ESA-listed marine mammals, but the effectswould be considered discountable because ingestion is extremely unlikely to occur. The use of marinemarkers is not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA. Inaccordance with NEPA, there would be no significant impact to marine mammals from marine markeruse during training exercises within territorial waters. In accordance with EO 12114, there would be nosignificant harm to marine mammals resulting from use of marine markers during training exercises innon-territorial waters.3.7.3.4 Alternative 1Vessel MovementsThe number of operations involving vessel movements would increase by about 1.4 percent per year inthe VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). These changes would result in increasedpotential for short-term behavioral reactions to vessels. Potential for collision would increase slightlycompared to the No Action Alternative; however, Navy mitigation measures (see Chapter 5) wouldreduce the probability. Vessel movements under Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed marine mammalsand would have no affect on manatees. Vessel movements are not expected to result in Level A or LevelB harassment as defined by the MMPA. In accordance with NEPA, vessel movements would have nosignificant impact on marine mammals in territorial waters. Furthermore, vessel movements would notcause significant harm to marine mammals in non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.Aircraft OverflightsAlternative 1 would include a 10 percent increase in fixed-wing aircraft sorties per year and an 88 percentincrease in helicopter sorties per year in the VACAPES Study Area (Table 2.2-5). A majority of the newhelicopter sorties would occur over the lower Chesapeake Bay. As a result, the potential for marinemammals to be exposed to overflights would increase compared to baseline conditions, particularly in thelower Chesapeake Bay. The magnitude of individual exposures would not increase because Alternative 1does not include use of new aircraft that are louder than current equipment. Peak noise levels generatedby the new MH-60R and MH-60S Multi-Mission Combat Support Helicopters would be similar to or lessthan the noise levels generated by the helicopters that they would replace.The additional overflights may result in increased instances of behavioral disturbance due to sound,shadow-effects, and/or, in the case of helicopters, water column disturbance. Similar to the No ActionAlternative, the responses would be limited to short-term behavioral or physiological reactions. Aircraftoverflights under Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed marine mammals. Aircraft overflights are notexpected to result in Level A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA. In accordance withNEPA, aircraft overflights would have no significant impact on marine mammals in territorial waters.Furthermore, aircraft overflights would not cause significant harm to marine mammals in non-territorialwaters in accordance with EO 12114.Towed MIW DevicesTowed MIW device sorties would increase by 75 percent per year under Alternative 1. Similar to the NoAction Alternative, use of towed MIW devices under Alternative 1 would have no effect on the bluewhale, sei whale, sperm whale, and manatee because use would take place where these species are notexpected to occur. Fin, humpback, and North Atlantic right whales may occur in areas where towed MIWdevices would be used. While the potential exists for marine mammals to be struck by a towed MIWdevice, there are no documented instances of this occurring in the Study Area. Helicopter crew members3-246 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsmonitor the water's surface during training to identify and avoid any objects that might damage theequipment. Based on the low flight altitudes and relatively slow air speeds, it is likely that crew memberswould be able see marine mammals at or near the surface and avoid them. Marine mammals at or nearthe surface would likely see or hear the oncoming helicopter or feel the downdraft, which could initiateavoidance behavior. The water column disturbance and sound created by the towed MIW device wouldlikely elicit short-term behavioral responses similar to those discussed for vessel movements and aircraftoverflights. The use of towed MIW devices under Alternative 1 may affect fin, humpback, North Atlanticright whales, but the potential effects of collisions would be discountable because they are extremelyunlikely to occur and the effects of disturbance would be insignificant. Towed MIW devices are notexpected to result in Level A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA. In accordance withNEPA, towed MIW devices would have no significant impact on marine mammals in territorial waters.Furthermore, towed MIW devices would not cause significant harm to marine mammals in non-territorialwaters in accordance with EO 12114.Weapons Firing/Non-explosive Practice Munitions UseNon-explosive Practice Munitions StrikesThe amount of ordnance fired would increase in the VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 1 (Table2.2-5 and 2.2-6) approximately 28 percent. These changes would result in increased potential exposurefor marine mammal ordnance strikes compared to baseline conditions. However, ordnance strikemodeling predicts that no marine mammals would be exposed to direct ordnance strikes underAlternative 1 (see Appendix I). Additionally, Navy mitigation measures further reduce the probability ofordnance-related exposure. There would be no effects from the use of non-explosive practice munitionson marine mammals under Alternative 1. Non-explosive practice munitions use is not expected to resultin Level A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA. In accordance with NEPA, non-explosivewould have no significant impact on marine mammals in territorial waters. Furthermore, non-explosivepractice munitions would not cause significant harm to marine mammals in non-territorial waters inaccordance with EO 12114.Weapons Firing DisturbanceThe number of weapons firings in the VACAPES Study Area would increase under Alternative 1. Basedon the discussion under the No Action Alternative above, the sound from firing of weapons would notresult in an exposure of marine mammals; therefore, any weapon firings under Alternative 1 would haveno effect to ESA-listed marine mammals. Weapons firing sound disturbance is not expected to result inLevel A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA. In accordance with NEPA, weapons firingsound disturbance would have no significant impact on marine mammals in territorial waters.Furthermore, weapons firing sound disturbance would not cause significant harm to marine mammals innon-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.Underwater Detonations and Explosive OrdnanceOverviewThe number and location of explosions occurring in the Study Area would not change underAlternative 1, with the exception of Hellfire missiles, 5 lb and 20 lb net explosive weight underwaterdetonation charges (Table 2.2-7 and Figure 3.7-6). Under Alternative 1 30 additional Hellfire missileexplosions would occur in the OPAREA, 30 additional 5 lb underwater detonation charges would occurin W-50, and 12 additional 20 lb underwater detonation charges would occur in W-50.An explosive analysis was conducted to estimate the number of marine mammals that could be exposed toimpacts from explosions. Appendix J contains a technical report describing the scientific basis, methodsand assumptions of the explosive analysis. Tables 3.7-17 and 3.7-18 provide summaries of the explosive3-247 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalsanalysis for Alternative 1. As discussed for the No Action Alternative, effects from exposure toexplosives vary depending on the level of exposure.TABLE 3.7-17SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM SINGLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—ALTERNATIVE 1Species/Training OperationPotentialExposures@ 182 dBre 1 Pa 2 -sor23 psi (peak)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msFin whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Humpback whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0North Atlantic right whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Sperm whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Atlantic Spotted dolphinBOMBEX training 10 1 0MISSILEX Training 6 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 16 1 0Beaked whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Bottlenose dolphinBOMBEX training 23 2 0MISSILEX Training 9 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 32 2 0Clymene dolphinBOMBEX training 2 0 0MISSILEX Training 1 0 03-248 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-17SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM SINGLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—ALTERNATIVE 1 (Continued)Species/Training Operation PotentialExposures@ 182 dBre 1 Pa 2 -sor23 psi (peak)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msMINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 3 0 0Common dolphinBOMBEX training 169 7 1MISSILEX Training 104 3 1MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 273 10 2Kogia spp.BOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Minke whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Pantropical spotted dolphinBOMBEX training 4 0 0MISSILEX Training 3 0 0MINEX training 1 0 0Total Exposures 8 0 0Pilot whalesBOMBEX training 4 0 0MISSILEX Training 3 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 7 0 0Risso’s dolphinBOMBEX training 3 0 0MISSILEX Training 3 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 6 0 0Rough-toothed dolphinBOMBEX training 0 0 0MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Striped dolphinBOMBEX training 41 2 0MISSILEX Training 36 1 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 77 3 03-249 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-18SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM MULTIPLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—Species/Training OperationALTERNATIVE 1PotentialExposures@ 177 dBre 1 Pa 2 -s(multipledetonations only)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msFin whaleBOMBEX training 44 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 44 0 0Humpback whaleBOMBEX training 25 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 25 0 0North Atlantic right whaleBOMBEX training 4 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 4 0 0Sperm whaleBOMBEX training 98 1 0FIREX training 2 0 0Total Exposures 100 1 0Atlantic Spotted dolphinBOMBEX training 5,303 80 0FIREX training 30 1 0Total Exposures 5,333 81 0Beaked whaleBOMBEX training 11 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 11 0 0Bottlenose dolphinBOMBEX training 11,131 166 0FIREX training 5 0 0Total Exposures 11,136 166 0Clymene dolphinBOMBEX training 362 3 0FIREX training 1 0 0Total Exposures 363 3 0Common dolphinBOMBEX training 36,235 373 4FIREX training 37 1 0Total Exposures 36,272 374 4Kogia spp.BOMBEX training 34 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 34 0 03-250 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-18SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM MULTIPLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—ALTERNATIVE 1 (Continued)Species/Training OperationPotentialExposures@ 177 dBre 1 Pa 2 -s(multipledetonations only)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msMinke whaleBOMBEX training 1 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 1 0 0Pantropical spotted dolphinBOMBEX training 757 7 0FIREX training 2 0 0Total Exposures 759 7 0Pilot whalesBOMBEX training 1,776 24 0FIREX training 7 0 0Total Exposures 1,783 24 0Risso’s dolphinBOMBEX training 593 5 0FIREX training 3 0 0Total Exposures 596 5 0Rough-toothed dolphinBOMBEX training 16 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 16 0 0Striped dolphinBOMBEX training 6,746 53 1FIREX training 41 2 0Total Exposures 6,787 55 1Summary of Exposure Results for Individual Marine MammalsFin, humpback, North Atlantic right, sperm whales, Atlantic spotted dolphins, beaked whales, bottlenosedolphins, Clymene dolphins, common dolphins, Kogia spp., minke whales, pantropical spotted dolphins,pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, rough-toothed dolphins, and striped dolphins may be exposed at levels thatcould result in behavioral disturbance (Table 3.7-18, 177 dB column). Atlantic spotted dolphins,bottlenose dolphins, Clymene dolphins, common dolphins, pantropical spotted dolphins, pilot whales,Risso’s dolphins, and striped dolphins may be exposed at levels that could result in temporary thresholdshift, or non-injurious physiological effects (Table 3.7-17, 182 dB column). Sperm whales, Atlanticspotted dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, Clymene dolphins, common dolphins, pantropical spotted dolphins,pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, and striped dolphins may be exposed at levels that could result inpermanent threshold shift, or injurious physiological effects (Tables 3.7-17 and 3.7-18, 205 dB column).Common dolphins and striped dolphins may be exposed to levels that would result in mortality (Tables3.7-17 and 3.7-18, 30.5 psi column).3-251 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsExposure estimates could not be calculated for several species (blue whale, sei whale, Bryde’s whale,killer whale, pygmy killer whale, false killer whale, melon-headed whale, spinner dolphin, Fraser’sdolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, and harbor porpoise) because density data could not be calculateddue to the limited available data for these species. For the same reasons discussed under the No ActionAlternative, no exposures are expected for blue whale, sei whale, Bryde’s whale, killer whale, pygmykiller whale, false killer whale, melon-headed whale, spinner dolphin, Fraser’s dolphin, Atlantic whitesideddolphin, and harbor porpoise. As dicussed for the No Action Alternative implementation ofmitigation measures under Alternative 1 would likely reduce the potential effects to all marine mammals.Effects on Marine Mammal PopulationsEffects from the use of explosive ordnance are not anticipated to have lasting impacts on any marinemammal population due to the following factors: Most exposures are within the non-injurious TTS or behavioral effects zones. Effects associated withthese exposures are expected to be temporary. The exposure analysis predicts that only two species would be exposed to levels that could potentiallyresult in mortality (six potential mortality exposures for common dolphin and one for striped dolphin).These species are among the most abundant marine mammals in the Study Area and the small numberof potential mortality exposures would be negligible from a population standpoint. Although the numbers presented in Tables 3.7-17 and 3.7-18 represent estimated harassment andinjury, as described above, they are probably over estimates as the model calculates harassmentwithout taking into consideration standard mitigation measures.Endangered Species Act ConclusionsUnderwater detonations and explosive ordnance use in Alternative 1 may affect fin, North Atlantic rightwhales, sei, blue, humpback, and sperm whales. However, the effects on blue and sei whales are mostlikely discountable based on the low likelihood of encountering these species in the Study Area.Underwater detonations and explosive ordnance use would have no effect on the manatee because theseexercises take place greater than 3 nm offshore where manatees are not expected to occur.Marine Mammal Protection Act ConclusionsFin whales, humpback whales, North Atlantic right whales, sperm whales, Atlantic spotted dolphins,beaked whales, bottlenose dolphins, Clymene dolphin, common dolphin, Kogia spp., minke whales,pantropical spotted dolphins, pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, rough-toothed dolphins and striped dolphinsmay also be exposed at levels that would constitute Level B harassment under the MMPA. Sperm whales,Atlantic spotted dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, Clymene dolphins, common dolphins, pantropical spotteddolphins, pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, and striped dolphins may be exposed at levels that wouldconstitute Level A harassment under the MMPA. Common and striped dolphins may be exposed to levelsthat would result in mortality.National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114 ConclusionsThe analysis presented above indicates that underwater detonations and explosive ordnance use underAlternative 1 would affect individual marine mammals, but any effects observed at the population, stock,or species level would be negligible. Therefore, in accordance with NEPA, there would be no significantimpact to marine mammal populations from explosive ordnance use during training exercises withinterritorial waters. In accordance with EO 12114, there would be no significant harm to marine mammalpopulations resulting from explosive ordnance use during training exercises in non-territorial waters.3-252 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISMilitary Expended MaterialsChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsOrdnance Related MaterialsThe amount of ordnance fired would increase in the VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 1(Table 2.2-5 and 2.2-6) by approximately 28 percent. Similar to the No Action Alternative, only spermwhales would potentially be exposed to expended ordnance via ingestion from the bottom. However,about 82 percent of all ordnance (based on number of rounds) would be expended west of the continentalshelf break under Alternative 1. Based on sperm whale habitat preferences and known feeding behaviorsdiscussed above, it is extremely unlikely that they would encounter and ingest expended ordnance.Ingestion of ordnance under Alternative 1 may affect the sperm whale, but the effects would bediscountable. Ordnance ingestion under Alternative 1 would have no effect on the manatee, blue whale,fin whale, humpback whale, North Atlantic right whale, or sei whale based on the feeding habits of thesespecies. Ordnance related materials would not be expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment asdefined by the MMPA. In accordance with NEPA, ordnance related materials would have no significantimpact on marine mammals in territorial waters. Furthermore, ordnance related materials would notcause significant harm to marine mammals in non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.Target Related MaterialsThe number of targets used in the Study Area would increase by about 10 percent per year underAlternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). As discussed above for the No Action Alternative, species that feed on ornear the bottom (i.e., sperm whales and beaked whales) may encounter an expended target while feeding;however, the size of the target would prohibit any listed species from ingesting it. Therefore, the use oftargets under Alternative 1 would have no effect on listed marine mammals. Targets would not beexpected to result in Level A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA. In accordance withNEPA, targets would have no significant impact on marine mammals in territorial waters. Furthermore,targets would not cause significant harm to marine mammals in non-territorial waters in accordance withEO 12114.Chaff Fibers, End-caps, and PistonsThe amount of chaff used in the OPAREA would increase by about 12 percent per year underAlternative 1 (Tables 2.2-5 and 3.7-16). This increase in chaff use would result in negligible increases inrelative environmental concentrations of chaff fibers, end-caps, and pistons (Table 3.7-16). Similar to theNo Action Alternative, chaff use under Alternative 1 would have no effect on manatees because theywould not be exposed to measurable concentrations. Effects of direct body contact, inhalation, and anychanges to water or sediment quality would continue to be insignificant. The potential for marinemammals to ingest chaff fibers would increase under Alternative 1, but ingestion of a toxic dose (greaterthan 1,000 mg/kg) would continue to be highly unlikely based on the anticipated low environmentalconcentration (1.8 fibers/ft 2 ). Sperm whales could ingest chaff end-caps and pistons under Alternative 1,but the likelihood of ingest remains extremely low based on the low environmental concentration (0.7 to2.2 pieces/nm 2 ). If ingested, it is likely that the small end-cap or piston would be excreted withoutcausing harm. Chaff use under Alternative 1 would have no effect on the manatee, but may affect ESAlistedlarge whales. Chaff use would not be expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment asdefined by the MMPA. In accordance with NEPA, chaff would have no significant impact on marinemammals in territorial waters. Furthermore, chaff would not cause significant harm to marine mammalsin non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.Self-Protection FlaresThe number of self-protection flares used in the Study Area would increase under Alternative 1 from 465to 825 per year (77%). Similar to the No Action Alternative, ingestion of flare end-caps under3-253 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsAlternative 1 may affect sperm whales, but the effects would be considered discountable becauseingestion is extremely unlikely to occur. Self-protection flares not expected to result in Level A or LevelB harassment as defined by the MMPA. In accordance with NEPA, flares would have no significantimpact on marine mammals in territorial waters. Furthermore, flares would not cause significant harm tomarine mammals in non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.Marine MarkersThe number of marine markers used in the Study Area would increase under Alternative 1 from 300 to495 per year, an increase of 65 percent. The probability of a marine mammal ingesting an expendedmarine marker would be extremely low based on the low concentration in the Study Area(0.02/nm 2 /year). Marine marker ingestion under Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed marine mammals(with the exception of the manatee), but the effects would be considered discountable because ingestion isextremely unlikely to occur. The use of marine markers is not expected to result in Level A or Level Bharassment as defined by the MMPA. In accordance with NEPA, there would be no significant impact tomarine mammals from marine marker use during training exercises within territorial waters. Inaccordance with EO 12114, there would be no significant harm to marine mammals resulting from use ofmarine markers during training exercises in non-territorial waters.3.7.3.5 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)All StressorsAs detailed in Chapter 2 and Table 2.2-5, Alternative 2 would include all the activities proposed underAlternative 1 with 445 less bombs 324 less fixed-wing sorties, 70 additional helicopter sorties, 842additional towed MIW device sorties, and establishment of Mine Warfare Training Areas. Vesselmovements and military expended materials are not expected to change under Alternative 2. Theadditional overflights may result in increased instances of behavioral disturbance in marine mammals dueto sound, shadow-effects, and/or, in the case of helicopters, water column disturbance. The responseswould be limited to short-term behavioral or physiological reactions. The changes in helicopter andtowed sorties under Alternative 2 are negligible with respect to the potential effects to marine mammals.Therefore, the Alternative 1 analyses for vessel movements, aircraft overflights, towed MIW devices, andmilitary expended materials are applicable to Alternative 2. The analysis for Alternative 2 focuses on theestablishment of the Mine Warfare Training Areas (non-explosive mine shape deployment/recovery) andthe reduction in the number of bombs used.Mine Warfare Training Area Establishment (Non-explosive Mine Shape Deployment/Recovery)As discussed in Chapter 2, new Mine Warfare Training Areas would be established in W-50A/C and thelower Chesapeake Bay under Alternative 2. This section addresses potential effects on marine mammalsassociated with establishing and maintaining these training areas (i.e., non-explosive mine shapedeployment/recovery). The effects of conducting training exercises in these areas are analyzed underaircraft overflights, towed MIW devices, and explosions.The effects of Mine Warfare Training Area establishment would be limited to short-term and localizeddisturbances of the water column and benthic habitat associated with deployment and recovery of nonexplosivemine shapes. As discussed in Chapter 2, the mine shape assembly would include a concreteanchor, mooring line, and the non-explosive mine shape. Approximately 20 permanent concrete anchorswould be placed in the proposed Mine Warfare Training Area in W-50A/C and approximately 60 wouldbe placed in the proposed training areas in the lower Chesapeake Bay (see Figures 2.2-2 and 2.2-3 forspecific locations). In some cases the entire assembly (mine shape, mooring line, and anchor) would bedeployed concurrently from a boat or aircraft and recovered immediately following the exercise. In othercases concrete anchors would be permanently placed on the sea floor and divers would attach the mooring3-254 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammalslines and mine shapes for specific exercises. The non-explosive mine shape deployment and recoveryprocess would have no effect on marine mammals. The mooring lines would not present an entanglementrisk for marine mammals because they are held taut by the anchor and mine shape. Entanglement ofmarine mammals usually occurs in fishing gear, ropes, and other flexible material that can wrap aroundthe body or body parts of an animal (Laist, 1997). Mooring lines would only be left in place for as longas the mine shape is in the water. Establishment of Mine Warfare Training Areas under Alternative 2would have no effect on ESA-listed marine mammals. The establishment of Mine Warfare TrainingAreas would not be expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment as defined by the MMPA. Inaccordance with NEPA, the establishment of Mine Warfare Training Areas would have no significantimpact on marine mammals in territorial waters. Furthermore, the establishment of Mine WarfareTraining Areas would not cause significant harm to marine mammals in non-territorial waters inaccordance with EO 12114.Underwater Detonations and Explosive OrdnanceOverviewExplosions associated with BOMBEX that would occur under Alternative 2 would decrease 96 percentfrom Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative. An explosive analysis was conducted to estimate thenumber of marine mammals that could be exposed to impacts from explosions. Appendix J of the EIScontains a technical report describing the scientific basis, methods and assumptions of the explosiveanalysis. Tables 3.7-19 and 3.7-20 provide summaries of the explosive analysis for Alternative 2. Figure3.7-7 shows a summary of the areas where high explosives would be used under Alternative 2. Asdiscussed for the No Action Alternative, effects from exposure to explosives vary depending on the levelof exposure.TABLE 3.7-19SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM SINGLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—Species/Training OperationALTERNATIVE 2PotentialExposures@ 182 dBre 1 Pa 2 -sor23 psi (peak)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msFin whaleMISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Humpback whaleMISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0North Atlantic right whaleMISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Sperm whaleMISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Atlantic Spotted dolphin3-255 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-19SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM SINGLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—ALTERNATIVE 2 (Continued)Species/Training Operation PotentialExposures@ 182 dBre 1 Pa 2 -sor23 psi (peak)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msMISSILEX Training 4 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 4 0 0Beaked whaleMISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Bottlenose dolphinMISSILEX Training 7 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 7 0 0Clymene dolphinMISSILEX Training 1 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 1 0 0Common dolphinMISSILEX Training 97 2 1MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 97 2 1Kogia spp.MISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Minke whaleMISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Pantropical spotted dolphinMISSILEX Training 3 0 0MINEX training 1 0 0Total Exposures 4 0 0Pilot whalesMISSILEX Training 2 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 2 0 0Risso’s dolphinMISSILEX Training 2 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 2 0 03-256 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-19SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM SINGLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—ALTERNATIVE 2 (Continued)Species/Training OperationPotentialExposures@ 182 dBre 1 Pa 2 -sor23 psi (peak)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msRough-toothed dolphinMISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Striped dolphinMISSILEX Training 26 1 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 26 1 0TABLE 3.7-20SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM MULTIPLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—ALTERNATIVE 2Species/Training OperationPotentialExposures@ 177 dBre 1 Pa 2 -s(multipledetonations only)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msFin whaleBOMBEX training 2 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 2 0 0Humpback whaleBOMBEX training 2 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 2 0 0North Atlantic right whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Sperm whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0FIREX training 2 0 0Total Exposures 2 0 03-257 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-20SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM MULTIPLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—ALTERNATIVE 2- (Continued)Species/Training OperationPotentialExposures@ 177 dBre 1 Pa 2 -s(multipledetonations only)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msAtlantic Spotted dolphinBOMBEX training 9 0 0FIREX training 30 1 0Total Exposures 39 1 0Beaked whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Bottlenose dolphinBOMBEX training 17 0 0FIREX training 5 0 0Total Exposures 22 0 0Clymene dolphinBOMBEX training 31 0 0FIREX training 1 0 0Total Exposures 32 0 0Common dolphinBOMBEX training 2,059 17 0FIREX training 37 1 0Total Exposures 2,096 18 0Kogia spp.BOMBEX training 3 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 3 0 0Minke whaleBOMBEX training 0 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Pantropical spotted dolphinBOMBEX training 64 1 0FIREX training 2 0 0Total Exposures 66 1 0Pilot whalesBOMBEX training 1 0 0FIREX training 7 0 0Total Exposures 8 0 0Risso’s dolphinBOMBEX training 11 0 0FIREX training 3 0 0Total Exposures 14 0 03-258 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-20SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM MULTIPLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—ALTERNATIVE 2- (Continued)Species/Training OperationPotentialExposures@ 177 dBre 1 Pa 2 -s(multipledetonations only)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msRough-toothed dolphinBOMBEX training 1 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 1 0 0Striped dolphinBOMBEX training 1 0 0FIREX training 41 2 0Total Exposures 42 2 0Summary of Exposure Results for Individual Marine MammalsFin, humpback, sperm whales, Atlantic spotted dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, Clymene dolphins,common dolphins, Kogia spp., pantropical spotted dolphins, pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, rough-tootheddolphins, and striped dolphins may be exposed at levels that could result in behavioral disturbance (Table3.7-20, 177 dB column). Atlantic spotted dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, Clymene dolphins, commondolphins, pantropical spotted dolphins, pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, and striped dolphins may beexposed at levels that could result in temporary threshold shift, or non-injurious physiological effects(Table 3.7-19, 182 dB column). Atlantic spotted dolphins, common dolphins, pantropical spotteddolphins, and striped dolphins may be exposed at levels that could result in permanent threshold shift, orinjurious physiological effects (Tables 3.7-19 and 3.7-20, 205 dB column). Under Alternative 2 nomarine mammals would be exposed to levels that would result in mortality (Tables 3.7-19 and 3.7-20,30.5 psi column).Exposure estimates could not be calculated for several species (blue whale, sei whale, Bryde’s whale,killer whale, pygmy killer whale, false killer whale, melon-headed whale, spinner dolphin, Fraser’sdolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, and harbor porpoise) because density data could not be calculateddue to the limited available data for these species. For the same reasons discussed under the No ActionAlternative, no exposures are expected for blue whale, sei whale, Bryde’s whale, killer whale, pygmykiller whale, false killer whale, melon-headed whale, spinner dolphin, Fraser’s dolphin, Atlantic whitesideddolphin, and harbor porpoise. As discussed for the No Action Alternative implementation ofmitigation measures under Alternative 2 would likely reduce the potential effects to all marine mammals.Effects on Marine Mammal PopulationsEffects from the use of explosive ordnance are not anticipated to have lasting impacts on any marinemammal population due to the following factors:Most exposures are within the non-injurious TTS or behavioral effects zones. Effects associated withthese exposures are expected to be temporary and only a small percentage of the local populationwould be exposed.3-259 March 2009

Central-Corrid or76°W75°W74°W73°W39°ND. C.ANNAPOLISMilfordWildwood39°NCambridgeDELAWARESeafordLewesRehoboth BeachAir-AAtlantic CityOPAREANAS Patuxent RiverLexington ParkMARYLANDPrincess AnneOcean CityAir-BAir-C38°NAir-DAir-EAir-F38°NNASAWallops IslandW-386VIRGINIA3 nm State Limitit12 nm Territorial LimAir-GAir-HAir-K7C 7D 8C 8DVACAPES OPAREAAir-IAir-JW-387A/B37°NNEWPORTNEWSNS NorfolkNAB Little Creek37°NNORFOLKPORTSMOUTHNAS OceanaVIRGINIABEACHW50AW50BW-387A: SFC-FL240W-387B: FL240-UNLNORTH CAROLINAW50CW-72A(1)Air-1AAir-2AW-72A(2)North-CorridorAir-1BAir-1CW-72BAir-1DAir-1EAir-1FAir-2BSouth-CorridorAir-2C36°NNags HeadAir-3AAir-2D36°NAir-2EAir-3BAir-2FAir-3CStumpy PointAir-3D35°NPiney Island3 nm State Limitit12 nm Territorial LimW-110Air-3E35°NCherry PointOPAREAATLANTICOCEAN34°N34°N76°W75°W74°W73°WPAMDWVVANCSCDENJLegendVACAPES OPAREAWarning Area (W)Air Grid3 nm Territorial Limit12 nm Territorial LimitBOMBEX (Air-K)MINEX (W-50)FIREX Preferred (1C1/2; 7C/D & 8C/D)FIREX Secondary (5C/D)MISSILEX-Hellfire Missiles (Air-K, W-72A(2))Maverick Missile Training Area (Air-K)0 12.5 25 50 75 100Nautical MilesFigure 3.7-7Underwater Explosive OrdnanceAreas in the VACAPES StudyArea for Alternative 2VACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-260

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammals The exposure analysis predicts that only five species (Atlantic spotted dolphin, common dolphin,pantropical spotted dolphin, and striped dolphin) may be exposed at levels that could result inpermanent threshold shift, or injurious physiological effects. These species are among the mostabundant marine mammals in the study area and the small number of potential injury exposures wouldbe negligible from a population standpoint. The exposure analsis predicts that no marine mammals would be exposed to levels that would result inmortality. Although the numbers presented in Tables 3.7-19 and 3.7-20 represent estimated harassment andinjury, as described above, they are probably over estimates as the model calculates harassmentwithout taking into consideration standard mitigation measures.Endangered Species Act ConclusionsUnderwater detonations and explosive ordnance in Alternative 2 may affect fin, North Atlantic rightwhales, sei, blue, humpback, and sperm whales. However, the effects on blue and sei whales are mostlikely discountable based on the low likelihood of encountering these species in the Study Area. Theeffects on the North Atlantic right whale would also be discountable because the exposure analysispredicts no exposures for this species. The Navy has initiated the ESA Section 7 formal consultationprocess with NMFS for listed whales and Alternative 2.Underwater detonations and explosive ordnance use would have no effect on the manatee because theseexercises take place greater than 3 nm offshore where manatees are not expected to occur. The Navy hascompleted the ESA Section 7 informal consultation process with USFWS for the manatee. In a letterdated October 7, 2008, the USFWS concurred with the Navy's determination that explosive ordnance usewould have no effect on the manatee (Appendix C).Marine Mammal Protection Act ConclusionsFin whales, humpback whales, sperm whales, Atlantic spotted dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, Clymenedolphin, common dolphin, Kogia spp., pantropical spotted dolphins, pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins,rough-toothed dolphins and striped dolphins may also be exposed at levels that would constitute Level Bharassment under the MMPA. Atlantic spotted dolphins, common dolphins, pantropical spotted dolphins,and striped dolphins may be exposed at levels that would constitute Level A harassment under theMMPA. No marine mammals would be exposed to levels that would result in mortality. The Navy hassubmitted to NMFS an application for a Letter of Authorization under MMPA for Alternative 2 (thePreferred Alternative).National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114 ConclusionsThe analysis presented above indicates that underwater detonations and explosive ordnance use underAlternative 2 would affect individual marine mammals, but any effects observed at the population, stock,or species level would be negligible. Therefore, in accordance with NEPA, there would be no significantimpact to marine mammal populations from explosive ordnance use during training exercises withinterritorial waters. In accordance with EO 12114, there would be no significant harm to marine mammalpopulations resulting from explosive ordnance use during training exercises in non-territorial waters.3.7.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThe Navy is working with NMFS through the ESA Section 7 consultation process to ensure thatunavoidable significant effects to marine mammals do not result from implementation of the proposedaction.3-261 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine Mammals3.7.5 Summary of Environmental Effects3.7.5.1 Endangered Species ActTable 3.7-21 provides a summary of the Navy's determination of effect for Alternative 2 (the PreferredAlternative) for federally listed marine mammals that occur in the VACAPES Study Area. The analysispresented indicates that actions may affect ESA-listed marine mammals. Accordingly, the Navyrequested formal ESA Section 7 consultation with NMFS to ensure the proposed action would not likelyjeopardize ESA-listed marine mammals. The Study Area does not contain designated critical habitat forany listed species. Consequently, the proposed action would have no effect on critical habitat. The Navyhas completed the ESA Section 7 informal consultation process with USFWS for the manatee. In a letterdated October 7, 2008, the USFWS concurred with the Navy's determination that Alternative 2 (PreferredAlternative) would have no effect on the manatee (Appendix C).3.7.5.2 Marine Mammal Protection ActThe analysis presented above indicates that several species of marine mammals could be exposed toimpacts associated with underwater detonations and explosive ordnance use under Alternative 2(Preferred Alternative) that could result in Level A or Level B harassment as defined by MMPAprovisions that are applicable to the Navy. Exposure estimates are provided in Tables 3.7-19 and 3.7-20.Although some individuals may be exposed at levels that could result in Level A or B harassment, it isunlikely that there would be adverse effects on the recruitment or survival of any species at the populationlevel. Other stressors associated with Alternative 2 are not expected to result in Level A or Level Bharassment. The Navy is working with NMFS through the MMPA permitting process to ensurecompliance with the MMPA.TABLE 3.7-21SUMMARY OF THE NAVY’S DETERMINATION OF EFFECT FOR FEDERALLYLISTED MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA –ALTERNATIVE 2Stressor Blue Fin HumpbackSei SpermWhale Whale WhaleWhale WhaleVessel MovementsVessel DisturbanceVessel CollisionsAircraft OverflightsAircraft DisturbanceTowed MIW devicesTowed MIW deviceStrikesMine Warfare TrainingArea EstablishmentNon-explosive MineShapeDeployment/RecoveryMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectNorthAtlanticRightWhaleMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectNoEffectWestIndianManateeNoEffectNoEffectNoEffectNoEffectNoEffect3-262 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-21SUMMARY OF THE NAVY’S DETERMINATION OF EFFECT FOR FEDERALLYLISTED MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA –ALTERNATIVE 2 (Continued)StressorWeaponsFiring/Ordnance UseWeapons FiringDisturbanceOrdnance StrikesExplosionsLive OrdnanceUnderwaterDetonationMilitary ExpendedMaterialsOrdnance RelatedMaterialsTarget RelatedMaterialsChaffSelf protection FlaresMarine MarkersBlueWhaleNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectNoEffectMayAffectFinWhaleNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectNoEffectMayAffectHumpbackWhaleNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectNoEffectMayAffectNorthAtlanticRightWhaleNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectNoEffectMayAffectSeiWhaleNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectNoEffectMayAffectSpermWhaleNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectWestIndianManateeNoEffectNoEffectNoEffectNoEffectNoEffectNoEffectNoEffectNoEffectNoEffect3.7.5.3 National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114As summarized in Table 3.9-22, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would haveno significant impact on marine mammals in territorial waters in accordance with NEPA. Furthermore, inaccordance with EO 12114 the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would not causesignificant harm to marine mammals in non-territorial waters.3-263 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-22SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVESON MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREASummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative andStressorNo ActionVessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed MIW DevicesNon-explosive MineShape Deployment/RecoveryWeapons Firing/NonexplosivePracticeMunitions UseUnderwaterDetonations andExplosive OrdnanceMilitary ExpendedMaterialsImpact ConclusionAlternative 1Vessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed MIW DevicesNon-explosive MineShape Deployment/RecoveryNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)Short-term behavioral responses fromgeneral vessel disturbance. Potentialfor injury or mortality from vesselcollisions.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses to overflights. No longtermpopulation-level effects.Low potential for towed MIW devicestrikes. No long-term population-leveleffects.No effect.No effect based on extremely lowprobability of direct strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses. Potential for injury ormortality within limited ZOI.Low potential for ingestion ofordnance related materials and chaffand/or flare plastic end-caps andpistons.No significant impact to marinemammals.Short-term behavioral responses fromgeneral vessel disturbance. Potentialfor injury or mortality from vesselcollisions. Slight increase comparedto No Action.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses to overflights. Slightincrease compared to No Action. Nolong-term population-level effects.Low potential for towed MIW devicestrikes. Slight increase compared toNo Action. No long-term populationleveleffects.No effect.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Short-term behavioral responses fromgeneral vessel disturbance. Potentialfor injury or mortality from vesselcollisions.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses to overflights. No longtermpopulation-level effects.No effect.No effect.No effect based on extremely lowprobability of direct strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses. Potential for injury ormortality within limited ZOI.Low potential for ingestion ofordnance related materials and chaffand/or flare plastic end-caps andpistons.No significant harm to marinemammals.Short-term behavioral responses fromgeneral vessel disturbance. Potentialfor injury or mortality from vesselcollisions. Slight increase comparedto No Action.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses to overflights. Slightincrease compared to No Action. Nolong-term population-level effects.No effect.No effect.3-264 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.7 – Marine MammalsTABLE 3.7-22SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVESON MARINE MAMMALS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA (Continued)Summary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative andStressorWeapons Firing/NonexplosivePracticeMunitions UseUnderwaterDetonations andExplosive OrdnanceMilitary ExpendedMaterialsImpact ConclusionAlternative 2Vessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed MIW DevicesNon-explosive MineShape Deployment/RecoveryWeapons Firing/NonexplosivePracticeMunitions UseUnderwaterDetonations andExplosive OrdnanceMilitary ExpendedMaterialsImpact ConclusionNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)No effect based on extremely lowprobability of direct strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses. Potential for injury ormortality within limited ZOI. Adecrease compared to No Action.Low potential for ingestion ofordnance related materials and chaffand/or flare plastic end-caps andpistons. Slight increase compared toNo Action.No significant impact to marinemammals.Short-term behavioral responses fromgeneral vessel disturbance. Potentialfor injury or mortality from vesselcollisions. Slight increase comparedto No Action.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses to overflights. Slightincrease compared to No Action. Nolong-term population-level effects.Low potential for towed MIW devicestrikes. Slight increase compared toNo Action. No long-term populationleveleffects.No effect.No effect based on extremely lowprobability of direct strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses. Potential for injury ormortality within limited ZOI. Slightincrease compared to No Action.Low potential for ingestion ofordnance related materials and chaffand/or flare plastic end-caps andpistons. Slight increase compared toNo Action.No significant impact to marinemammals.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)No effect based on extremely lowprobability of direct strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses. Potential for injury ormortality within limited ZOI. Slightincrease compared to No Action.Low potential for ingestion ofordnance related materials and chaffand/or flare plastic end-caps andpistons. Slight increase compared toNo Action.No significant harm to marinemammals.Short-term behavioral responses fromgeneral vessel disturbance. Potentialfor injury or mortality from vesselcollisions. Slight increase comparedto No Action.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses to overflights. Slightincrease compared to No Action. Nolong-term population-level effects.No effect.No effect.No effect based on extremely lowprobability of direct strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses. Potential for injury ormortality within limited ZOI.Substantial decrease compared to NoAction.Low potential for ingestion ofordnance related materials and chaffand/or flare plastic end-caps andpistons. Slight increase compared toNo Action.No significant harm to marinemammals.3-265 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.8 SEA TURTLESChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtles3.8.1 Introduction and Methods3.8.1.1 Regulatory FrameworkEndangered Species ActThe Endangered Species Act (ESA) established protection over and conservation of threatened andendangered species. An “endangered” species is a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all ora significant portion of its range, while a “threatened” species is one that is likely to become endangeredwithin the foreseeable future throughout all or in a significant portion of its range. The USFWS andNMFS jointly administer the ESA and are also responsible for the listing of species (i.e., the labeling of aspecies as either threatened or endangered). The USFWS has primary management responsibility formanagement of terrestrial and freshwater species, including nesting sea turtles. The NMFS has primaryresponsibility for sea turtles in the marine environment. The ESA requires federal agencies to conservelisted species and consult with the USFWS and/or NMFS to ensure that proposed actions that may affectlisted species or critical habitat are consistent with the requirements of the ESA. The ESA specificallyrequires agencies not to “take” or “jeopardize the continued existence of” any endangered or threatenedspecies, or to destroy or adversely modify habitat critical to any endangered or threatened species. UnderSection 9 of the ESA, “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, orcollect. Harm is further defined by USFWS to include significant habitat modification or degradation thatresults in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding,feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by USFWS as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listedspecies to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are notlimited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR §17.3). Under Section 7 of the ESA, “jeopardize thecontinued existence of” means to engage in any action that would be expected to reduce appreciably thelikelihood of the survival and recovery of a listed species by reducing its reproduction, numbers, ordistribution (50 CFR §402.02).All five species of sea turtles that potentially occur in the VACAPES Study Area are listed as threatenedor endangered under the ESA. For purposes of ESA compliance, the Navy analyzed effects of the actionto make a determination of effect for listed species (e.g., no effect or may affect). The definitions used inmaking the determination of effect under Section 7 of the ESA are based on the USFWS and NMFSEndangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS and NMFS, 1998). “No effect” is the appropriateconclusion when a listed species will not be affected, either because the species will not be present orbecause the project does not have any elements with the potential to affect the species. “No effect” doesnot include a small effect or an effect that is unlikely to occur: if effects are insignificant (in size),discountable (extremely unlikely), or wholly beneficial a “may affect” determination is appropriate.Insignificant effects relate to the magnitude or extent of the impact (i.e., they must be small and would notrise to the level of a take of a species). Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur andbased on best judgment, a person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluateinsignificant effects; or (2) expect discountable effects to occur.The Navy has initiated the ESA Section 7 formal consultation process with NMFS to determine if theaction would adversely affect ESA-listed sea turtles or jeopardize the continued existence of a listedspecies. Copies of correspondence with NMFS are provided in Appendix C of this EIS/OEIS.National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114In addition to addressing ESA requirements, potential effects were analyzed in accordance with theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to determine if the action would result in significant impacts3-266 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlesto sea turtles in territorial waters and in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 12114 to determine if theaction would result in significant harm to sea turtles in non-territorial waters.For purposes of NEPA and EO 12114, the Navy considered context and intensity to determine thesignificance of effects. Context refers to the affected environment in which the action would occur andintensity refers to the severity of impacts. The Navy considered several contexts such as society as awhole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. The duration ofeffects (e.g., short-term, long-term, temporary, permanent); degree of controversy; degree of highlyuncertain effects or unique or unknown risks; precedent-setting effects; cumulative effects; adverse effecton ESA-listed species or designated critical habitat; and whether the action threatens a violation of law orrequirements imposed for the protection of the environment were also considered. The potential foradverse effects to be observed at the population or species level was a primary factor considered by theNavy in determining the significance of effects to sea turtles. While the factors outlined above for ESAwere considered in making NEPA and EO 12114 significance conclusions, it should be recognized thatthe terminology used to characterize effects varies under these Acts. For example, take of an individualsea turtle under ESA does not necessarily equate to a significant impact under NEPA. Rather, the Navyconsidered context, intensity, and population-level effects in making its significance conclusions for seaturtles.3.8.1.2 Assessment Methods and Data UsedGeneral Approach to AnalysisThe general approach to analysis for sea turtles is the same as the approach described for marinemammals in Section 3.7.1.2.Study AreaThe study area for sea turtles is described in Section 1.5 and is shown in Figure 1.5-1. The Study Area isanalogous to the “action area,” for purposes of analysis under Section 7 of the ESA.Data SourcesA comprehensive and systematic review of relevant literature data was conducted to complete thisanalysis for sea turtles. These data sources are described in Section 3.7.1.2.Marine Resource AssessmentsThe information contained in this Chapter relies heavily on the data gathered in the Marine ResourceAssessments (MRA). The Navy MRA Program was implemented by the Commander, Fleet ForcesCommand, to initiate collection of data and information concerning the protected and commercial marineresources found in the Navy’s OPAREAs. Specifically, the goal of the MRA program is to describe anddocument the marine resources present in each of the Navy’s OPAREAs. The MRA for the VACAPESOPAREA was finalized in 2008 (DoN, 2008).The MRA data were used to provide a regional context for each species. The MRA represents acompilation and synthesis of available scientific literature (e.g., journals, periodicals, theses, dissertations,project reports, and other technical reports published by government agencies, private businesses, orconsulting firms), and NMFS reports including recovery plans, and survey reports.Navy OPAREA Density Estimates ReportThe density estimates that were used in previous Navy environmental documents have been recentlyupdated to provide a compilation of the most recent data and information on the occurrence, distribution,and density of sea turtles. The updated density estimates presented in this EIS/OEIS are derived from theNavy OPAREA Density Estimates (NODEs) for the Southeast OPAREAs: VACAPES, CHPT,3-267 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesJAX/CHASN, and Southeastern Florida & AUTEC Andros report (DoN, 2007a). The Navy OPAREAdensity estimate (NODE) report represents the most current density estimates for sea turtles (DoN, 2007a)in the VACAPES OPAREA and were obtained through spatial modeling of survey data provided byNMFS (Southeast and Northeast Fisheries Science Centers).Density estimates for sea turtles were modeled using available line-transect survey data. Using the modelbasedapproach, density estimates were calculated for each species within areas containing survey effort.A relationship between these density estimates and the associated environmental parameters such asdepth, slope, distance from the shelf break, sea surface temperature (SST), and chlorophyll a (chl a)concentration was formulated using generalized additive models (GAMs). This relationship was then usedto generate a two-dimensional density surface for the region by predicting densities in areas where nosurvey data exist.The analyses for sea turtles were based on sighting data collected through aerial surveys conducted byNMFS-Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and Southeast Fisheries Science Center(NMFS-SEFSC) between 1998 and 2005. For specifics of data used in these analyses refer to DoN(2008). All spatial models and density estimates were reviewed by and coordinated with NMFS ScienceCenter technical staff and scientists with the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, Centre forEnvironmental and Ecological Modeling (CREEM).Density estimates were generated for the leatherback turtle, loggerhead turtle, Kemp’s ridley turtle, andthe group hardshell turtles. The species incorporated into the hardshell turtles group include green,hawksbill, and unidentified hardshell turtles and were pooled together because the numbers of sightingsfor each species or group were not sufficient to allow spatial modeling. This category did not includeleatherback turtles since identification is not difficult. The NODE report did not include density estimatesfor waters less than 10 m deep. Table 3.8-1 summarizes the density estimates for training areas whereexplosive ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES Range Complex.TABLE 3.8-1SEASONAL DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR SEA TURTLES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREAWHERE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE MAY OCCURSpecies and Training AreaWinter(Dec-Feb)Density (animals/km 2 )Spring(Mar-May)Summer(June-Aug)Fall(Sept-Nov)Loggerhead TurtleW-50 0.10999 0.10999 0.10200 0.10999W-72A (2) 0.13517 0.13517 0.12567 0.13517Air-E, F, I, J 0.07146 0.07146 0.12466 0.07146Air-K 0.15127 0.15127 0.13158 0.15127Air-3B 0.07742 0.07742 0.10826 0.077421C1/2 0.15045 0.15045 0.13480 0.150455C/D 0.15045 0.15045 0.13480 0.150457C/D and 8C/D 0.15045 0.15045 0.13480 0.15045Leatherback TurtleW-50 0.00065 0.00065 0.00009 0.00065W-72A (2) 0.01352 0.01352 0.02655 0.01352Air-E, F, I, J 0.01243 0.01243 0.02988 0.01243Air-K 0.00308 0.00308 0.00212 0.00308Air-3B 0.00685 0.00685 0.00434 0.006851C1/2 0.00320 0.00320 0.00206 0.003205C/D 0.00320 0.00320 0.00206 0.003203-268 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesTABLE 3.8-1SEASONAL DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR SEA TURTLES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREAWHERE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE MAY OCCUR (Continued)Species and Training AreaDensity (animals/km 2 )Winter Spring SummerFall(Dec-Feb) (Mar-May) (June-Aug) (Sept-Nov)7C/D and 8C/D 0.00320 0.00320 0.00206 0.00320Kemp’s ridley TurtleW-50

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesTABLE 3.8-2SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO SEA TURTLES 11Vessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed Mine Warfare (MIW)DevicesNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryWeapons Firing/Non-explosive PracticeMunitions UseUnderwater Detonations/Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and OperationMine Warfare (MIW)Mine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM)TrainingAreasLowerChesapeake BayMine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM) W-50 A/C, W-72,W-386 Mine Neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (at sea)Missile Exercise (MISSILEX) (Air-to-Surface)Gunnery Exercise (GUNEX) (Air-to-Surface)W-386 (Air-K)W-72A (Air-3B)W-72A/BW-386 (Air-K)W-72AW-386 (Air-K),W-72A, W-72A(Air-1A), W-50C GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) Boat W-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) Ship W-386, W-72 Laser TargetingW-386 (Air-K) 11 For detailed information on the numbers and types of ordnance, specific weapons platforms, types of targets used and location of operations, see Table 2.2-4and Appendix D.3-270 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesTABLE 3.8-2SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO SEA TURTLES(Continued)Vessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed Mine Warfare (MIW)devicesNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryWeapons Firing/Ordnance UseUnderwater Detonations/Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and OperationAir Warfare (AAW)TrainingAreasAir Combat Maneuver (ACM)W-72A(Air-2A/B, 3A/B) GUNEX (Air-to-Air) W-72A MISSILEX (Air-to-Air)W-386 (Air D, G,H, K)W-72A GUNEX (Surface-to-Air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (Surface-to-Air)W-386(Air D, G, H, K) Air Intercept Control (AIC) W-386, W-72 Strike Warfare (STW)HARM Missile ExerciseAmphibious Warfare (AMW)Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure/MaritimeInterception Operations (VBSS/MIO)-ShipW-386(Air E,F,I,J) VACAPESOPAREA3-271 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesTABLE 3.8-2SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO SEA TURTLES(Continued)Vessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed Mine Warfare (MIW)devicesNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryWeapons Firing/Ordnance UseUnderwater Detonations/Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and OperationTrainingAreasVBSS/MIO- Helo VACAPESOPAREAFiring Exercises (FIREX) –IntegratedMaritime Portable Acoustic Scoring andSimulator System (IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)W-386 Chaff Exercise- aircraftW-386, W-386(Air-K) and W-72 Chaff Exercise- ship W-386 and W-72 W-386, W-386Flare Exercise- aircraft(Air-K) and W-72 Electronic Combat (EC) OperationsaircraftEC Operations- shipTest and EvaluationW-386 (Air-K) VACAPESOPAREA Shipboard Electronic Systems EvaluationFacility (SESEF) UtilizationVACAPESOPAREA 3-272 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesAs discussed in Section 3.3 – Water Resources and Section 3.4 – Air Quality, some water and airpollutants would be released into the environment as a result of the proposed action. The analysespresented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 indicate that any increases in water or air pollutant concentrationsresulting from Navy training in the Study Area would be negligible and localized, and impacts to waterand air quality would be less than significant. Based on the analyses presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4,water and air quality changes would have no effect or negligible effects on sea turtles. Accordingly, theeffects of water and air quality changes on sea turtles are not addressed further in this EIS/OEIS.3.8.2 Affected Environment3.8.2.1 Regional OverviewFive sea turtle species are known to occur in the VACAPES Study Area (Table 3.8-3). Along the U.S.Atlantic coast, four sea turtle species (leatherback, loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, and green) migrateseasonally from offshore and warmer southern waters far into northern latitudes each summer(Morreale, 2005). Nesting is also documented for beaches bordering the region.TABLE 3.8-3SEA TURTLES KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREACommon Name Scientific Name StatusGreen turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened (1)Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata EndangeredKemp’s ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii EndangeredLeatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea EndangeredLoggerhead turtle Caretta caretta Threatened(1) As a species, the green turtle is listed as threatened. However, the Florida and Mexican Pacific coast nesting populations arelisted as endangered. It should be noted that not all green turtles found in the VACAPES Study Area come from the Floridapopulation.Sea turtle distribution in temperate waters generally shifts on a seasonal basis off the U.S. Atlantic coastin response to changes in water temperature and prey availability (Lutcavage and Musick, 1985; Musickand Limpus, 1997; Coles and Musick, 2000). During winter months, sea turtle distribution shifts eithersouth or offshore, where water temperatures are warmer and their prey are more abundant (Epperly etal., 1995b; Epperly et al., 1995a). Throughout the rest of the year, sea turtles are common residents ofinshore and nearshore waters along the U.S. Atlantic coast as far north as Massachusetts. A notabledistinction is the increasing proportion of small and apparently young individuals along a northwardgradient (Morreale and Standora, 2005). This pattern is evident in loggerheads and greens, and is “starklyobvious” in Kemp’s ridleys (Morreale and Standora, 2005). In North Carolina and Virginia, theproportion of breeding adult loggerheads in bays and estuaries is smaller than in Georgia and Florida,with most individuals classified as medium-sized juveniles. Most Kemp’s ridleys along the U.S. Atlanticcoast are immature. However, a latitudinal gradient still exists (Morreale and Standora, 2005). Onlysmall-sized Kemp’s ridleys have been documented in the northeastern waters of New York andMassachusetts, and while a few larger individuals have been reported in the southern and mid-Atlanticstates (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia), the vast majority are also small individuals (Morealleand Standora, 2005).Current sea turtle estimates in the Chesapeake Bay (based on aerial surveys), corrected for seasonalsurfacing behavior, and extrapolated for the entire Bay, range between 2,500 and 5,500 turtles comparedto 6,500 to 9,000 turtles observed in the lower Chesapeake Bay alone in the 1980s (Mansfield, 2006).These estimates represent all sea turtles observed and are not broken down by species. There are nospecific density estimates for sea turtles in the lower Chesapeake Bay region.3-273 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtles3.8.2.2 Green TurtleGeneral Description - The green turtle is the largest hard-shelled sea turtle; adults commonly reach100 cm in carapace length and 150 kg in weight (NMFS and USFWS, 1991).Very young green turtles are omnivorous, leaning to carnivory (Bjorndal 1985, 1997). Salmon et al.(2004) reported that posthatchling green turtles were found to feed near the surface on floating Thalassiaand Sargassum or at shallow depths on ctenephores and unidentified gelatinous eggs but ignored largejellyfish (Aurelia) off southeastern Florida. Adult green turtles feed primarily on seagrasses (e.g., turtlegrass, manatee grass, shoal grass, and eelgrass), macroalgae, and reef-associated organisms (Burke etal., 1992; Bjorndal, 1997). They also consume jellyfish, salps, and sponges (Mortimer, 1995;Bjorndal, 1997).Green turtles typically make dives shallower than 30 m (Hays et al. 1999, 2000; Hochscheid et al., 1999;Godley et al., 2002; Hatase et al., 2006). However, green turtles are also known to forage and rest atdepths of 20 to 50 m (Balazs, 1980; Brill et al., 1995).Status and Management - The green turtle is classified as threatened under the ESA, with the Florida andMexican Pacific coast nesting populations listed as endangered (NMFS and USFWS, 1991). There isdesignated critical habitat for the species in the Caribbean that includes the waters surrounding Culebra,Puerto Rico (NMFS, 1998). Recent population estimates for green turtles in the western Atlantic area arenot available (NMFS, 2006). NMFS and USFWS share jurisdictional responsibility for sea turtles underthe ESA. USFWS has responsibility in the terrestrial environment while NMFS has responsibility in themarine environment.Habitat - Post-hatchling and early juvenile green turtles reside in convergence zones in the open ocean,where they spend an undetermined amount of time in the pelagic environment (Carr, 1987; Witheringtonand Hirama, 2006). Once green turtles reach a carapace length of 20 to 25 cm (7.9 to 9.8 inches), theymigrate to shallow nearshore areas (

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlesof North Carolina are also an important feeding habitat for juveniles of this species (Epperly etal., 1995a).Green turtles nest on both island and continental beaches between 30ºN and 30ºS (Witherington etal., 2006a). Although Florida is near the northern extent of the green turtle’s Atlantic nesting range, ithosts a significant proportion of green turtle nesting (Witherington et al., 2006a). Green turtle nesting inFlorida has occurred in every coastal county except those bordering the Big Bend area (Meylan etal., 1995; Witherington et al., 2006a). Approximately 99 percent of the green turtle nesting in Floridaoccurs on the Atlantic coast, with Brevard through Broward counties hosting the greatest nesting activity(Meylan et al., 1995; Witherington et al., 2006a). There are scattered nesting records in Georgia, and theCarolinas (Peterson et al., 1985; Schwartz, 1989; NMFS and USFWS, 1991).VACAPES OPAREA Green Turtle Occurrence - Green turtles may occur year-round in the area withfew occurrences during the winter. Summer represents the peak time for green turtle occurrence in theOPAREA due to the presence of summer developmental foraging habitat along the coast. One greenturtle has been documented nesting on Virginia beaches. Therefore, few, if any, green turtle nesting isexpected to occur on beaches landward of the VACAPES Study Area (DoN, 2008).Lower Chesapeake Bay Green Turtle Occurrence - Little is known on habitat usage by the green turtlein the Chesapeake Bay. The occurrence of greens in the Bay is very rare, with only one or twoindividuals recorded every few years (DoN, 2007b).VACAPES OPAREA Green Turtle Density - The density estimates for training areas where explosionsand/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES Study Area are provided in Table 3.8-1. Seasonaldensity estimates for the hardshell turtle group in the VACAPES Study Area, include greens, hawksbills,and unidentified hardshell turtles. Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Report (DoN, 2007).3.8.2.3 Hawksbill TurtleGeneral Description - The hawksbill turtle is a small to medium-sized sea turtle; adults range between65 and 90 cm in carapace length and typically weigh around 80 kg (Witzell, 1983; NMFS andUSFWS, 1993). Hawksbills are considered to be omnivorous during the later juvenile stage, feeding onencrusting organisms such as sponges, tunicates, bryozoans, algae, mollusks, and a variety of other itemssuch as crustaceans and jellyfish (Bjorndal, 1997). Older juveniles and adults are more specialized,feeding primarily on sponges, which comprise as much as 95 percent of their diet in some locations(Witzell, 1983; Meylan, 1988).Hawksbills may have one of the longest routine dive times of all the sea turtles. Starbird et al. (1999)reported that inter-nesting females at Buck Island, USVI had an average dive time of 56.1 minutes.Average mean dive times during the day ranged from 34 to 65 minutes, while those at night were between42 and 74 minutes. Data from time-depth recorders indicate that foraging dives of immature hawksbillsin Puerto Rico range from 8.6 to 14 minutes in duration, with a mean depth of 4.7 m (Van Dam andDiez, 1996). These individuals were found to be most active during the day. Changes in watertemperature have an effect on the behavioral ecology of hawksbill turtles, with an increase in nocturnaldive duration with decreasing water temperatures during the winter (Storch et al., 2005).Status and Management - The hawksbill turtle is listed as endangered under the ESA. This species issecond only to the Kemp’s ridley in terms of endangerment (NMFS and USFWS, 1993; Bass, 1994).There is designated critical habitat for the species in the Caribbean that includes the waters surroundingMona and Monito Islands, Puerto Rico (NMFS and USFWS, 1998a). NMFS and USFWS sharejurisdictional responsibility for sea turtles under the ESA. USFWS has responsibility in the terrestrialenvironment while NMFS has responsibility in the marine environment.3-275 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesHabitat - Hawksbill turtles inhabit oceanic waters as post-hatchlings and small juveniles, where they aresometimes associated with driftlines and floating patches of Sargassum (Parker, 1995; Witherington andHirama, 2006). The developmental habitats for juvenile benthic-stage hawksbills are the same as theprimary feeding grounds for adults. They include tropical, nearshore waters associated with coral reefs,hard bottoms, or estuaries with mangroves (Musick and Limpus, 1997). Coral reefs are recognized asoptimal hawksbill habitat for juveniles, sub-adults, and adults (NMFS and USFWS, 1993; Diez and VanDam, 2003). In neritic habitats, resting areas for late juvenile and adult hawksbills are typically located indeeper waters than their foraging areas, such as sandy bottoms at the base of a reef flat (Houghton etal., 2003). Late juveniles generally reside on shallow reefs less than 18 m deep. However, as they matureinto adults, hawksbills move to deeper habitats and may forage to depths greater than 90 m. Benthicstagehawksbills are seldom found in waters beyond the continental or insular shelf, unless they are intransit between distant foraging or nesting grounds (NMFS and USFWS, 1993).General Distribution - Hawksbill turtles are circum-tropical in distribution, generally occurring from30°N to 30°S within the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans (Witzell, 1983). The hawksbill turtle hasonly rarely been recorded away from the tropics. In the Atlantic Ocean, this species is found throughoutthe Gulf of Mexico, the Greater and Lesser Antilles, and southern Florida, as well as along the mainlandof Central America south to Brazil (NMFS and USFWS, 1993). The hawksbill is rare north of Florida(Lee and Palmer, 1981; Keinath et al., 1991; Parker, 1995; Plotkin, 1995; USFWS, 2001). Smallhawksbills have stranded as far north as Cape Cod, Massachusetts (NMFS, 2006). In 2000 there was onehawksbill stranding in the Chesapeake Bay and one was reported as being taken incidentally in a fisheryjust south of the Chesapeake Bay (NMFS, 2006). Adult hawksbills are rarely documented in Floridawaters, although nesting females occasionally visit beaches along the southeastern coast and the FloridaKeys (Meylan and Redlow, 2006).Major foraging populations in U.S. waters occur in the vicinity of the coral reefs surrounding MonaIsland, Puerto Rico and Buck Island, St. Croix, USVI (Starbird et al., 1999). Smaller populations ofhawksbills reside in the hard bottom habitats that surround the Florida Keys and other small islands inPuerto Rico and the USVI (Witzell, 1983; NMFS and USFWS, 1993). There is designated critical habitatfor the species in the Caribbean that includes the waters surrounding Mona and Monito islands, PuertoRico (NMFS and USFWS, 1998a).Virtually all nesting is restricted between latitudes 25ºN and 35ºS. Hawksbill nesting in Florida has beenreported from Cape Canaveral National Seashore south to Boca Grande Key and the Marquesas Islandsand a single locality on the west coast (Longboat Key) (Meylan and Redlow, 2006).VACAPES OPAREA Hawksbill Turtle Occurrence - The hawksbill turtle is rare north of Florida (Leeand Palmer, 1981; Keinath et al., 1991; Parker, 1995; Plotkin, 1995; USFWS, 2001). There have been afew sightings, strandings and bycatch records that indicate hawksbills may occur on a rare basis in theOPAREA. Nesting does not occur on beaches landward of the VACAPES OPAREA (DoN, 2008).Lower Chesapeake Bay Hawksbill Turtle Occurrence - Hawksbills are extralimital to Chesapeake Bay.Only three records of hawksbill strandings exist for Virginia waters, all were juveniles (DoN, 2007b).VACAPES OPAREA Hawksbill Turtle Density - The density estimates for training areas whereexplosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES Study Area are provided in Table 3.8-1.Seasonal density estimates for the hardshell turtle group in the VACAPES Study Area, include greens,hawksbills, and unidentified hardshell turtles. Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Report(DoN, 2007).3-276 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtles3.8.2.4 Kemp's Ridley TurtleGeneral Description - The Kemp’s ridley is the smallest living sea turtle. This species has a straightcarapace length of approximately 60 to 70 cm (with shell length and width being nearly equal) and weighabout 45 kg (USFWS and NMFS, 1992; Gulko and Eckert, 2004). Kemp’s ridley turtles feed primarilyon portunids (swimming crabs) and other types of crabs, but are also known to prey on mollusks, shrimp,fish, jellyfish, and plant material (Marquez-M., 1994; Frick et al., 1999; Lutcavage and Musick, 1985;Keinath et al., 1987; Seney and Musick, 2005). Kemp’s ridleys may also feed on shrimp fishery bycatch(Landry and Costa, 1999).Few data are available on the maximum dive duration. Satellite-tagged juvenile Kemp’s ridley turtlesdemonstrate different mean surface intervals and dive depths depending on whether the individual islocated in shallow coastal areas (short surface intervals) or in deeper, offshore areas (longer surfaceintervals). Dive times range from a few seconds to a maximum of 167 minutes, with routine dives lastingbetween 16.7 and 33.8 minutes (Mendonça and Pritchard, 1986; Renaud, 1995). In Cedar Keys, Florida,the average submergence duration was found to be approximately 8.4 minutes (Schmid et al., 2002).Renaud and Williams (2005) noted seasonal differences in dive durations, with longer dives(>30 minutes) during the winter and dive duration of 15 minutes the remainder of the year. Sasso andWitzell (2006) reported longer dives at night than during the day for this species. Over a 12-hour period,Kemp’s ridleys spend as long as 96 percent of their time submerged (Byles, 1989; Gitschlag, 1996;Renaud and Williams, 2005; Sasso and Witzell, 2006).Status and Management - The Kemp’s ridley turtle is classified as endangered under the ESA; this isconsidered the world’s most endangered sea turtle species (USFWS and NMFS, 1992). The worldwidepopulation declined from tens of thousands of nesting females in the late 1940s to approximately300 nesting females in 1985 (TEWG, 2000). From 1985 to 1999, the number of nests at Rancho Nuevoincreased at a mean rate of 11.3 percent per year (TEWG, 2000). Positive trends in 2005 were recordedin Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas (6,947 nests) on the eastern coast of Mexico, Barra del Tordo (701 nests),and Barra de Tepehuajes (1,610 nests) (USFWS, 2005). Nesting levels at Padre Island National Seashorein Texas, the site of a Kemp’s ridley head-starting and imprinting program from 1978 to 1988, show aslow but steady rise throughout time (Shaver and Wibbels, 2007). NMFS and USFWS sharejurisdictional responsibility for sea turtles under the ESA. USFWS has responsibility in the terrestrialenvironment while NMFS has responsibility in the marine environment.Habitat - Kemp’s ridley turtles occur in open-ocean and Sargassum habitats of the North Atlantic Oceanas post-hatchlings and small juveniles (Manzella et al., 1991; Witherington and Hirama, 2006). Theymove as large juveniles and adults to benthic, nearshore feeding grounds along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulfcoasts (Morreale and Standora, 2005). Habitats frequently utilized include warm-temperate to subtropicalsounds, bays, estuaries, tidal passes, shipping channels, and beachfront waters where preferred food,including the blue crab, occurs (Lutcavage and Musick, 1985; Landry and Costa, 1999; Seney andMusick, 2005). Models indicate that the most suitable habitats are less than 10 m in bottom depth withsea surface temperatures between 22° and 32°C (Coyne et al., 2000). Seagrass beds and mud bottom, aswell as live bottom, are important developmental habitats (Schmid and Barichivich, 2006). PostnestingKemp’s ridleys travel along coastal corridors generally shallower than 50 m in bottom depth (Morreale etal., 2007).General Distribution - Feeding grounds and developmental areas are found on the Atlantic and Gulfcoasts of the United States. Henwood and Ogren (1987) and Gitschlag (1996) documented sightings andmovements of juveniles within and among preferred habitats along both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.Some Kemp’s ridley juveniles may migrate as far north as New York and New England, arriving in theseareas around June (Morreale and Standora, 2005). During the winter, they are prompted by cooler water3-277 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlestemperatures to leave northern developmental habitats and migrate south to warmer waters in Florida(Marquez-M., 1994). Migrations tend to take place in nearshore waters along the mid-Atlantic coast(Morreale and Standora, 2005; Morreale et al., 2007); juvenile and adults typically travel inshore of the18 m isobath (Renaud and Williams, 2005). This migratory corridor is a narrow band running withincontinental shelf waters, possibly spanning the entire length of the U.S. Atlantic coast (Morreale andStandora, 2005; Morreale et al., 2007). Next to loggerheads, the Kemp’s ridley is the second mostabundant sea turtle found in nearshore and inshore mid-Atlantic waters (Keinath et al., 1987; Musick andLimpus, 1997). Seasonal movements continue until turtles reach sexual maturity, at which time, theyreturn to breeding grounds in the Gulf of Mexico (Henwood and Ogren, 1987).The western coast of Florida (particularly the Cedar Keys area), the coast of Alabama, the mouth of theMississippi River, and the coastal waters off western Louisiana and eastern Texas are identified asimportant developmental regions for the Kemp’s ridley (Márquez-M., 1990; USFWS and NMFS, 1992;Marquez-M., 1994; Schmid et al., 2002). The Gulf of Campeche in the southern Gulf of Mexico is alsoimportant foraging habitat.Individuals are known to overwinter in areas south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, although themajority of Kemp’s ridleys stay in Florida near Cape Canaveral (Henwood and Ogren, 1987).Overwintering individuals may occasionally bury in the mud to hibernate (Schwartz, 1989; Marquez-M., 1994). Individuals that overwinter in southern North Carolina may subsequently move into warmerwaters (e.g., Gulf Stream or areas off South Carolina) during the mid-winter (Renaud, 1995; Morreale andStandora, 2005). For example, an individual satellite tagged in Beaufort in 1989 stayed in Onslow Bay,North Carolina during the winter and subsequently moved into the Gulf Stream when temperatures cooledclose to shore in January 1990 (Renaud, 1995).VACAPES OPAREA Kemp’s Ridley Turtle Occurrence - Kemp’s ridleys may occur within theVACAPES OPAREA year-round, although occurrence is most common during the summer. Watertemperature is the most influential factor in the seasonal occurrence of Kemp’s ridleys within theOPAREA. There is no Kemp’s Ridley nesting on the beaches landward of the VACAPES OPAREA.Lower Chesapeake Bay Kemp’s Ridley Turtle Occurrence - In the Chesapeake Bay, Kemp’s ridleys areresident from May through October (DoN 2008).VACAPES OPAREA Kemp’s Ridley Turtle Density - The density estimates for training areas whereexplosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES Study Area are provided in Table 3.8-1.Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Report (DoN, 2007).3.8.2.5 Leatherback TurtleGeneral Description - The leatherback turtle is the largest living sea turtle. Mature males and femalescan be as long as 2 m curved carapace length (NMFS and USFWS, 1992). Specimens less than 145 cmcurved carapace length are considered to be juveniles (NMFS-SEFSC, 2001; Eckert, 2002). Adultleatherbacks weigh between 200 and 700 kg (NMFS and USFWS, 1992), although larger individuals aredocumented (Eckert and Luginbuhl, 1988). Leatherbacks feed throughout the epipelagic and into themesopelagic zones of the water column (Davenport, 1988; Eckert et al., 1989; Grant and Ferrell, 1993;Salmon et al., 2004; James et al., 2005b). Prey is predominantly gelatinous zooplankton such ascnidarians (jellyfish and siphonophores) and tunicates (salps and pyrosomas) (NMFS and USFWS, 1992;Grant and Ferrell, 1993; Bjorndal, 1997; James and Herman, 2001; Salmon et al., 2004).The leatherback is the deepest diving sea turtle with a recorded maximum depth of 1,230 m (Hays etal., 2004a), though most dives are much shallower than this (usually less than 200 m) (Hays et al., 2004a;Sale et al., 2006). Leatherbacks spend the majority of their time in the upper 65 m of the water columnregardless of their behavior (Jonsen et al., 2007). The aerobic dive limit for the leatherback turtle is3-278 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlesestimated between 33 and 67 minutes (Southwood et al., 1999; Hays et al., 2004b; Wallace et al., 2005).Tagging data revealed that changes in individual turtle diving activity appear to be related to watertemperature, suggesting an influence of seasonal prey availability on their diving behavior (Hays etal., 2004b).Leatherbacks dive deeper and longer in the lower latitudes versus the higher (south versus the north)(James et al., 2005b). In northern waters, they are also known to dive to waters with temperatures justabove freezing (James et al., 2006; Jonsen et al., 2007). James et al. (2006) noted a considerablevariability in surface time between the northern and southern latitudes. Dives in the north are punctuatedby longer surface intervals (equating to much more time spent at the surface per 24-hour period), withindividuals spending up to 50 percent of their time at or near the surface in northern foraging areas,perhaps in part to thermoregulate (i.e., bask).Status and Management - Leatherback turtles are listed as endangered under the ESA. Critical habitatfor leatherbacks is designated in the Caribbean at Sandy Point, St. Croix, USVI (NMFS, 1979). NMFSand USFWS share jurisdictional responsibility for sea turtles under the ESA. USFWS has responsibilityin the terrestrial environment while NMFS has responsibility in the marine environment.Habitat - Throughout their lives, leatherbacks are essentially oceanic, yet they enter into coastal watersfor foraging and reproduction. There is limited information available regarding the habitats utilized bypost-hatchling and early juvenile leatherbacks as these age classes are entirely oceanic (NMFS andUSFWS 1992). These life stages are restricted to waters greater than 26°C and, therefore, spend muchtime in tropical waters (Eckert 2002a). Late juvenile and adult leatherback turtles are known to rangefrom mid-ocean to continental shelf and nearshore waters (Schroeder and Thompson 1987; Shoop andKenney 1992; Grant and Ferrell 1993). Juvenile and adult foraging habitats include both coastal feedingareas in temperate waters and offshore feeding areas in tropical waters (Frazier 2001). Adults may alsofeed in cold waters at high latitudes (James et al. 2006a). The movements of adult leatherbacks appear tobe linked to the seasonal availability of their prey and the requirements of their reproductive cycle(Collard 1990; Davenport and Balazs 1991; Luschi et al. 2006).General Distribution - The leatherback turtle is distributed circumglobally in tropical, subtropical, andwarm-temperate waters throughout the year and into cooler temperate waters during warmer months(NMFS and USFWS, 1992; James et al., 2005a) as far north as Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador,Iceland, the British Isles, and Norway (Bleakney, 1965; Brongersma, 1972; Threlfall, 1978; Goff andLien, 1988). The leatherback is the most oceanic and wide-ranging of sea turtles, undertaking extensivemigrations for hundreds to thousands of kilometers (Morreale et al. 1996; Hughes et al., 1998). Adultleatherback turtles forage in temperate and subpolar regions in all oceans and migrate to tropical nestingbeaches between 30°N and 20°S.According to aerial survey data, there is a northward movement of individuals along the southeast coastof the United States in the late winter/early spring. In February and March, most leatherbacks along theU.S. Atlantic coast are found in the waters off northeast Florida. By April and May leatherbacks begin tooccur in larger numbers off the coasts of Georgia and the Carolinas (NMFS, 1995; 2000). In latespring/early summer, leatherbacks appear off the mid-Atlantic and New England coasts, while by latesummer/early fall, many will have traveled as far north as the waters off eastern Canada, remaining in thenortheast from approximately May through October (CETAP, 1982; Shoop and Kenney, 1992; Wynekenet al., 2005). Leatherback foraging areas in the western Atlantic are located on the continental shelf (30to 50°N) as well as offshore (42°N, 65°W) (Eckert et al., 2006). The location of these foraging areaschanges seasonally. From March through November, foraging areas occur on the North Americancontinental shelf yet shift to off-shelf waters from December through February (Eckert et al., 2006).3-279 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesLeatherback nesting occurs on isolated mainland beaches in tropical (mainly Atlantic and Pacific, few inIndian Ocean) and temperate oceans (southwest Indian Ocean) (NMFS and USFWS, 1992) and to a lesserdegree on some islands, such as the Greater and Lesser Antilles. In the United States, the densest nestingoccurs in Florida along the Atlantic coast from Jensen Beach south to Palm Beach (Stewart andJohnson, 2006). Sporadic nesting occurs in Georgia, South Carolina, and as far north as North Carolina(Rabon et al., 2003).VACAPES OPAREA Leatherback Turtle Occurrence - Leatherbacks are found year-round in theVACAPES OPAREA, and could be expected in both shallow and deep waters. Leatherback presence isexpected to peak off Virginia's coast in May and July and off North Carolina's coast from mid-Aprilthrough mid-October. A leatherback nest in North Carolina occurred in 1966. No leatherback nests wererecorded after that until 1998. Since then, a handful of nests have been confirmed in North Carolina(Cape Hatteras National Seashore is the northernmost recorded nest). Confirmed nests include 2 in 1998,4 in 2000, 1 in 2002, 1 in 2003, 2 in 2004 and 1 in 2006 (NPS, 2007). These nests all occur south of thewestern boundary of the VACAPES OPAREA. Nesting does not occur on the beaches landward of thewestern boundary of the VACAPES OPAREA.Lower Chesapeake Bay Leatherback Turtle Occurrence - Leatherbacks are occasionally observed in theChesapeake Bay, but do not appear to be regular inhabitants. Hardy (1969) noted that individuals appearto enter the Bay between June and mid-September. Live leatherbacks have been reported in the upperChesapeake Bay and in the Severn River in the Mobjack Bay system (Musick et al., 1988; Keinath andMusick, 1990) during June and July.Aerial surveys off the Virginia coastline have documented leatherbacks congregating off the Bay mouth,especially May to July, presumably to feed on abundant jellyfish (Musick et al., 1988; Barnard etal., 1989; Keinath and Musick, 1990). Leatherbacks may occur rarely within the lower Chesapeake Bayregion.VACAPES OPAREA Leatherback Turtle Density - The density estimates for training areas whereexplosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES Study Area are provided in Table 3.8-1.Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Report (DoN, 2007).3.8.2.6 Loggerhead TurtleGeneral Description - The loggerhead turtle is a large hard-shelled sea turtle named for itsdisproportionately large head. The average straight carapace length of an adult female loggerhead isbetween 90 and 95 cm and the average weight is 100 to 150 kg (Dodd, 1988; NMFS andUSFWS, 1998b).The diet of the loggerhead turtles progressively changes with age and size (Godley etal., 1998). The gut contents of post-hatchlings found in masses of Sargassum contained parts ofSargassum, zooplankton, jellyfish, larval shrimp and crabs, and gastropods (Carr and Meylan, 1980;Richardson and McGillivary, 1991; Witherington, 1994). Juvenile and subadult loggerhead turtles areomnivorous, foraging on pelagic crabs, mollusks, jellyfish, and vegetation captured at or near the surface(Dodd, 1988; Frick et al., 1999). Adult loggerheads are carnivorous, often foraging on fish, in nearshorewaters, as well as benthic invertebrates (mollusks, crustaceans, and coelenterates) (Dodd, 1988).On average, loggerhead turtles spend over 90 percent of their time underwater (Byles, 1988; Renaud andCarpenter, 1994; Narazaki et al., 2006). Loggerheads tend to remain at depths shallower than 100 m(Houghton et al., 2002; Polovina et al., 2003; Hawkes et al., 2006; Narazaki et al., 2006;McClellan, 2007). Routine dive depths are typically shallower than 30 m (Houghton et al., 2002),although dives of up to 233 m were recorded for a post-nesting female loggerhead off Japan (Sakamoto etal., 1990). Routine dives typically can last from 4 to 120 minutes (Byles, 1988; Sakamoto et al., 1990;Renaud and Carpenter, 1994; Bentivegna et al., 2003; Dodd and Byles, 2003).3-280 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesStatus and Management - Loggerhead turtles are listed as threatened under the ESA. The loggerhead isthe most abundant sea turtle occurring in U.S. waters. In the continental United States there are fourdemographically independent loggerhead nesting groups or subpopulations: (1) Northern: North Carolina,South Carolina, Georgia, and northeast Florida; (2) South Florida: occurring from 29°N on the east coastto Sarasota on the west coast; (3) Florida Panhandle: Eglin Air Force Base and the beaches near PanamaCity, and (4) Dry Tortugas (Witherington et al., 2006b). Bowen et al. (1995) noted that under aconventional interpretation of the nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) data, all breeding populations inthe entire southeastern United States would be regarded as a single management unit, yet themitochondrial DNA data indicate multiple isolated populations, and further suggest this complexpopulation structure mandates a different management strategy at each life stage. The South Floridanesting subpopulation is the largest loggerhead rookery in the Atlantic Ocean (and the second largest inthe world), followed by the Northern, Florida Panhandle, and Dry Tortugas subpopulations (Ehrhart etal., 2003; Witherington et al., 2006b). The south Florida nesting subpopulation produced between 43,500and 83,400 nests annually over the past decade (USFWS and NMFS, 2003). NMFS and USFWS sharejurisdictional responsibility for sea turtles under the ESA. USFWS has responsibility in the terrestrialenvironment while NMFS has responsibility in the marine environment.Habitat - The loggerhead turtle occurs worldwide in habitats ranging from coastal estuaries to waters farbeyond the continental shelf (Dodd, 1988). The species may be found hundreds of miles out to sea, aswell as in inshore areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of largerivers. Results from tagging data of juvenile loggerheads in both the eastern and western North Atlanticsuggest that the location of currents and associated frontal eddies is important to the foraging ecology ofthe pelagic stage of this species (McClellan, 2007). The neritic juvenile stage and adult foraging stageboth occur in the neritic (nearshore) zone. Coral reefs, rocky places, and ship wrecks are often used asfeeding areas. The turtles here are active and feed primarily on the bottom (epibenthic/demersal), thoughprey is also captured throughout the water column (Bjorndal, 2003; Bolten, 2003). The neritic zone notonly provides crucial foraging habitat, but can also provide inter-nesting and overwintering habitat.Tagging data revealed that migratory routes may be coastal or may involve crossing deep ocean waters;an oceanic route may be taken even when a coastal route is an option (Schroeder et al., 2003).General Distribution - Loggerhead turtles are widely distributed in subtropical and temperate waters(Dodd, 1988). Loggerhead turtles can be found along the U.S. Atlantic coast from Cape Cod to theFlorida Keys during any season. Loggerheads seem generally restricted to waters of the North AtlanticOcean south of 38°N, with mean sea surface temperatures around 22.2 °C. In the Mid-Atlantic Bight,loggerheads concentrate in continental shelf waters but are also commonly sighted in deeper, offshorewaters (Shoop and Kenney, 1992). Low water temperatures affect loggerhead turtle activity. Coldstunnedloggerheads have been found in various locales, including off the northeastern United States(Morreale et al., 1992). Immature loggerheads inhabiting cool-temperate areas in the western NorthAtlantic usually migrate seasonally to avoid cold-stunning (lethargy due to cold water temperatures thatcould lead to death) (Musick and Limpus, 1997). Some loggerheads are believed to escape coldconditions by burying themselves in the bottom sediment and hibernating (Carr et al., 1980; Ogren andMcVea, 1995; Hochscheid et al., 2005). In early spring, juvenile loggerheads over-wintering insoutheastern U.S. waters begin to migrate north to developmental feeding habitats (Morreale andStandora, 2005).The generally accepted life-history model for the species is summarized well by Musick and Limpus(1997), Bolten and Witherington (2003), and Hawkes et al. (2006). Hatchlings travel to oceanic habitats,often occurring in Sargassum drift lines (Carr, 1986, 1987; Witherington and Hirama, 2006). Whenjuveniles reach sizes between 40 and 60 cm carapace length (about 14 years old), some individuals beginto recruit to the neritic zone (benthic habitat in shallow coastal waters) close to their natal area, while3-281 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlesothers remain in the oceanic habitat or move back and forth between the two (Musick and Limpus, 1997;Laurent et al., 1998). Turtles either may utilize the same neritic developmental habitat all throughmaturation, or they may move among different areas and finally settle in an adult foraging habitat. Atsexual maturity (about 30 years old), adults switch from subadult to adult neritic foraging habitats(Musick and Limpus, 1997; Godley et al., 2003). In direct contrast with the accepted life-history modelfor this species, Hawkes et al. (2006) recently reported that tagging work at the Cape Verde Islands(Africa) revealed two distinct adult foraging strategies that appear to be linked to body size. The largerturtles foraged in coastal waters, whereas smaller individuals foraged oceanically. Likewise, off Japan,epipelagic foraging has been recorded for adult female loggerheads (Hatase et al., 2002). Hawkes et al.(2006) also found that movements of adult loggerheads off Cape Verde were in part driven by localsurface currents, with active movement by individuals to remain in areas of high productivity.VACAPES OPAREA Loggerhead Turtle Occurrence - Loggerheads may occur year-round in theVACAPES OPAREA, using waters of the OPAREA for foraging and transit to nesting beaches. Seasonalwater temperatures influence loggerhead occurrence within the OPAREA. Loggerheads may occur inhigher numbers in the shelf waters offshore Maryland during the spring and northern North Carolinaduring the fall. During spring and fall, loggerheads are likely transiting the OPAREA to access summerforaging or overwintering habitats. Virginia is the northernmost nesting area regularly used byloggerheads along the U.S. Atlantic Coast (Musick, 1988). Between two and 10 nests are documentedannually along Virginia’s Atlantic coastal beaches (BBNWR, 1993; Mansfield et al., 2001). Virginia’snesting season begins in late May/early June, continuing through mid- to late August.Lower Chesapeake Bay Loggerhead Turtle Occurrence - The residency season for Chesapeake Bayloggerhead turtles is between May and late October/early November. Once loggerheads are within theBay, it is assumed they are likely in the tributaries, at least within the lower portions (Mansfield, 2007).The Chesapeake Bay is considered an important developmental habitat for neritic juvenile loggerheadsoriginating from the genetic stocks found within the eastern United States (Norrgard, 1995; Musick andLimpus, 1997). Adult loggerheads are known to use the Chesapeake Bay as an inter-nesting or foraginghabitat; adult loggerheads compose approximately five percent of the turtle population within the Bay(Lutcavage and Musick, 1985; Mansfield, 2006). Loggerheads may occur in the lower Chesapeake Bayregion throughout the year. No regular nesting by loggerheads occurs within Chesapeake Bay.VACAPES OPAREA Loggerhead Turtle Density - The density estimates for training areas whereexplosions and/or ordnance use may occur in the VACAPES Study Area are provided in Table 3.8-1.Methods and results are detailed in the NODE Report (DoN, 2007).3.8.3 Environmental Consequences3.8.3.1 Explosive Ordnance Exposure AnalysisThe exercises that use explosives are BOMBEX (W-386, Air-K and W-72A/B), MINEX (W-50A/C),FIREX (W-386 Area 7C/D, 8C/D,, 5C/D, and W-72 Area 1C1/2), and MISSILEX (W-386 Air-K and W-72A). Table 2.2-7 summarizes the number of events per year and specific areas where each occurs foreach type of explosive ordnance used.3.8.3.2 Summary of Thresholds and Criteria for Sea TurtlesDocumentation of PTS or TTS in sea turtles is extremely scarce; limited to scattered, solitary records thatwould be difficult to extrapolate to a population-wide generality. However, it is assumed that acousticexposure may elicit a physiological or behavioral response (startle) to detonations. Presumably the samebroad categories of responses that were examined for marine mammals may also apply here to sea turtles(See Section 3.7.3.1). Few experiments have been conducted to attempt to quantify explosive exposureson turtles; and unfortunately, the methods of these experiments do not allow for their results to be3-282 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlesanalyzed. Navy analysts have compared the injury levels reported by the best of these experiments to theinjury levels that would be predicted using the modified Goertner method (Goertner, 1982). For thisassessment, in the absence of criteria specifically set for sea turtles, the criteria for marine mammals, asestablished in the Churchill FEIS (DoN, 2001), are used to estimate potential exposures for turtles. Noninjuriouseffects are determined by either the dual physiological criteria for single detonations or by thebehavioral criterion for multiple detonations. The criterion for behavioral disturbance used in thisanalysis is based on use of multiple explosives that only take place during a FIREX (w/IMPASS) event ora BOMBEX event where the MK-82 or MK-83 bombs are used. Table 3.8-4 shows the criteria used inthe assessment for impulsive sounds for sea turtles. Section 3.7.3.2 provides a more detailed explanationfor each criteria level, metric, and threshold for small explosives and a full explanation of the acousticaffects analysis.TABLE 3.8-4EFFECTS, CRITERIA, AND THRESHOLDS FOR IMPULSIVE SOUNDSEffect Criteria Metric ThresholdMortalityInjuriousPhysiologicalInjuriousPhysiologicalNon-InjuriousPhysiologicalNon-InjuriousPhysiologicalNon-injuriousBehavioralOnset of ExtensiveLung Injury50% TympanicMembrane Rupture—PTS*Onset Slight LungInjuryTTS **TTS**BehavioralDisturbance* PTS: Permanent Threshold Shift** TTS: Temporary Threshold ShiftAcoustic Effects AnalysisGoertner modified positive impulseEnergy flux densityGoertner modified positive impulseGreatest energy flux density level inany 1/3-octave band (above 100 Hzfor toothed whales/sea turtles andabove 10 Hz for baleen whales) - fortotal energy over all exposuresPeak pressure for any single lexposureGreatest energy flux density level inany 1/3-octave (above 100 Hz forsea turtles) - for total energy over allexposures (multiple explosions only)indexed to 30.5 psi-msec(assumes 100% smallanimal at 26.9 lbs)1.17 in-lb/in 2 (about 205dB re 1 Pa 2 -sec)indexed to 13 psi-msec(assumes 100% smallanimal at 26.9 lbs)182 dB re 1 Pa 2 -sec23 psi177 dB re 1 Pa 2 -secBOMBEX, FIREX, MISSILEX and MINEXSection 3.7.3.2 for marine mammals outlines the analysis and also applies here to sea turtles. In addition,a more in-depth effects analysis may be found in Appendix J.3.8.3.3 No Action AlternativeVessel MovementsMany of the ongoing and proposed operations within the VACAPES Study Area involve maneuvers byvarious types of surface ships, boats, and submarines (collectively referred to as vessels). Vesselmovements have the potential to affect sea turtles by directly striking or disturbing individual animals.The probability of ship and sea turtle interactions occurring in the VACAPES Study area is dependent onseveral factors including numbers, types, and speeds of vessels; the regularity, duration, and spatial extent3-283 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlesof operations; the presence/absence and density of sea turtles; and mitigation measures implemented bythe Navy. Currently, the number of Navy vessels operating in the VACAPES Study Area varies based ontraining schedules and can range from 0 to about 10 vessels at any given time. Ship sizes range from362 feet for a nuclear submarine (SSN) to 1,092 feet for a nuclear aircraft carrier (CVN). Speeds foroperations and training typically range from 10 to 14 knots. Operations involving vessel movementsoccur intermittently and are short in duration, ranging from a few hours up to a few weeks. Theseoperations are widely dispersed throughout the VACAPES OPAREA, which is a vast area encompassing27,661 nm 2 (an area approximately the size of Indiana). The Navy logs about 1,400 total steaming dayswithin the Study Area during a typical year.Also, it should be noted that a variety of smaller craft, such as service vessels for routine operations andopposition forces used during training events will be operating within the Study Area. Small craft types,sizes and speeds vary. The Navy’s rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) is one representative example of asmall craft that may be used during training exercises. By way of example, the Naval Special WarfareRHIB is 35 feet in length and has a speed of 40+ knots. Other small craft, such as those used in maritimesecurity training events, are of similar length and speed to the RHIB and often resemble, and often are,recreational fishing boats (i.e., a 30 - 35 foot center consol boat with twin outboard engines).During training speeds generally range from 10 to 14 knots; however, it should be expected thatships/craft can and will, on occasion, operate within the entire spectrum of their specific operationalcapabilities. It may be necessary for vessels/craft to operate at higher speeds for specific events, such as,but not limited to, pursuing and overtaking hostile vessels, evasive maneuvers, andmaintenance/performance checks, such as ship trials. In all cases, the vessels/craft will be operated in asafe manner consistent with the local conditions.While the lookout requirements described above do not apply to small boats, small boat crews are trainedto detect and avoid all objects on or near the water surface as a standard safety measure. In addition,some training exercises that involve small boats also involve a ship that has lookouts. In such cases,observations of marine species by shipboard lookouts would be transmitted to the small boats and theavoidance measures applicable to the ship would apply to the small boats.Disturbance Associated with Vessel MovementsThe ability of turtles to detect approaching vessels via auditory and/or visual cues would be expectedbased on knowledge of their sensory biology (Bartol and Musick, 2003; Ketten and Bartol, 2006; MoeinBartol and Ketten, 2006; Bartol and Musick, 2001; Levenson et al., 2004). Little information is availableon how turtles respond to vessel approaches. Hazel et al. (2007) reported that greater vessel speedsincreased the probability turtles would fail to flee from an approaching vessel. Turtles fled frequently inencounters with a slow-moving (2.2 knots) vessel, but infrequently in encounters with a moderate-moving(5.9 knots) vessel, and only rarely in encounters with a fast-moving (10.3 knots) vessel. It is difficult todifferentiate whether a sea turtle reacts to a vessel due to the produced sound, the presence of the vesselitself, or a combination of both.Sea turtle hearing sensitivity is not well studied. Several studies using green, loggerhead, and Kemp’sridley turtles suggest sea turtles are most sensitive to low-frequency sounds, although this sensitivityvaries slightly by species and age class (Ridgway et al., 1969; Lenhardt et al., 1994; Bartol et al., 1999;Ketten and Moein Bartol, 2006).Sea turtles possess an overall hearing range of approximately 100 to 1,000 Hz, with an upper limit of2,000 Hz (Ridgway et al., 1969; Lenhardt et al., 1994; Bartol et al., 1999; Ketten and MoeinBartol, 2006). Although it is difficult to determine whether sea turtle response to vessel traffic is visual orauditory in nature, it is assumed sea turtles can hear approaching vessels given their hearing range.3-284 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesHazel et al. (2007) found that sea turtles reacted to approaching vessels in a variety of ways. Benthicturtles launched upwards at a shallow angle and began swimming. The majority of the turtles swam awayfrom the vessel while some swam along the vessel’s track and some crossed in front of the vessel’s trackbefore swimming away. Sea turtle reaction time was greatly dependent on the speed of the vessel; seaturtles were able to react faster to slower moving vessels than to faster moving vessels. Sea turtlereactions to vessels elicited short-term responses.Given the current ambient sound levels in the marine environment, the amount of sound contributed bythe use of Navy vessels in the proposed exercises is very low. It is anticipated that any sea turtlesexposed would exhibit only short-term reactions and would not suffer any long-term consequences fromship sound.Human disturbance to wild animals may elicit similar reactions to those caused by natural predators (Gillet al., 2001; Beale and Monaghan, 2004). Behavioral responses may also be accompanied by aphysiological response (Romero, 2004), although this is very difficult to study in the wild. ImmatureKemp’s ridley turtles show physiological responses to the acute stress of capture and handling throughincreased levels of corticosterone (Gregory and Schmid, 2001). In the short term, exposure to stressorsresults in changes in immediate behavior (Frid, 2003). For turtles, this can include intense behavioralreactions such as biting and rapid flipper movement (Gregory and Schmid, 2001). Repeated exposure tostressors, including human disturbance such as vessel disturbance and anthropogenic sound, can result innegative consequences to the health and viability of an individual or population (Gregory and Schmid,2001). Chronic stress can result in decreased reproductive success (Lordi et al., 2000; Beale andMonaghan, 2004), decreased energy budget (Frid, 2003), displacement from habitat (Southerland andCrockford, 1993), and lower survival rates of offspring (Lordi et al., 2000). At this time, it is unknownwhat the long-term implications of chronic stress may be on sea turtle species.Sea turtles may become habituated to sounds, including high levels of ambient noise found in areas ofhigh vessel traffic (Moein et al., 1994; Hazel et al., 2007). Moein et al. (1994) conducted a study using afixed sound source to repel sea turtles away from hopper dredges. Three decibel levels (175, 177, and179 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) were used for the study. It was found that while sea turtles avoided the soundupon first exposure, they appeared to habituate to the stimuli over a period of time (Lenhardt, 1994;Moein et al., 1994). Adult loggerheads have been observed to initially respond (i.e., increase swimmingspeeds) and avoid air guns when received levels range from 151 to 175 dB re: 1 Pa, but they eventuallyhabituate to these sounds (Lenhardt, 2002). One turtle in the study was reported to exhibit a TTS for upto two weeks after exposure to these levels (Lenhardt, 2002). Viada et. al. (2008) reported on sea turtlestrandings attributed to underwater explosions used in demolishing oil platforms; two juvenile turtles, 100and 150 ft away from an explosion were killed. Sea turtles exposed to the general disturbance associatedwith a passing Navy ship could exhibit a short-term behavioral response such as fleeing. Therefore,general ship disturbance under the No Action Alternative may affect ESA-listed sea turtles. Inaccordance with NEPA, disturbance from vessels in territorial waters would have no significant impact onsea turtles. Furthermore, disturbance from vessels in non-territorial waters would not cause significantharm to sea turtles in accordance with EO 12114.Vessel StrikesVessel strikes are known to affect sea turtles in the Study Area. Turtles swimming or feeding at or justbeneath the surface of the water are particularly vulnerable to a vessel strike. According to Florida Fishand Wildlife Conservation Commission (unpublished data) there was a significantly increasing trend inthe percent occurrence of propeller wounds among the loggerheads found dead or debilitated each year inFlorida during 1986-2004. In addition, sound from surface vessel traffic may cause behavioral responsesof sea turtles.3-285 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesAccordingly, the Navy has adopted standard operating procedures and mitigation measures to reduce thepotential for strikes with surfaced sea turtles (for more details refer to Chapter 5). These mitigationmeasures include:Using lookouts trained to detect all objects on the surface of the water, including sea turtles.Implementing reasonable and prudent actions to avoid the close interaction of Navy assets and seaturtles.Maneuvering to keep away from any observed sea turtle.Vessel strikes under the No Action Alternative may affect listed sea turtles. The Navy is consulting withNMFS in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. In accordance with NEPA, vessel strikes interritorial waters would have no significant impact on sea turtles. Furthermore, vessel strikes in nonterritorialwaters would not cause significant harm to sea turtles in accordance with EO 12114.Aircraft OverflightsFixed-Wing Aircraft OverflightsThe general aircraft overflight exposure information presented for marine mammals in Section 3.7.4.1 isalso applicable to sea turtles. As discussed in Section 3.7.4.1, aircraft overflights would produce airbornenoise and some of this energy would be transmitted into the water. Sea turtles could be exposed to noiseassociated with subsonic and supersonic fixed-wing aircraft overflights and helicopter operations while atthe surface or while submerged. In addition, low-flying aircraft passing overhead could create a shadoweffect that could induce a reaction in sea turtles. It is difficult to differentiate between reactions to thepresence of aircraft and reactions to sound. Exposure to elevated noise levels would be brief (seconds)and infrequent based on the transitory and dispersed nature of the overflights. Sound exposure levelswould be relatively low because a majority of the overflights would be above 3,000 feet. Fixed-wingaircraft overflights may occur throughout the VACAPES OPAREA.Very little information regarding sea turtle reactions to fixed-wing aircraft overflights is available. Basedknowledge of their sensory biology (Bartol and Musick, 2003; Ketten and Bartol, 2006; Lenhardt, 1994;Ridgway et al., 1969; Bartol et al., 1999), sound from low flying aircraft could be heard by a sea turtle ator near the surface. Turtles might also detect low flying aircraft via visual cues such as the aircraft'sshadow. Hazel et al. (2007) suggested that green turtles rely more on visual cues than auditory cues whenreacting to approaching water vessels. This suggests that sea turtles might not respond to aircraftoverflights based on noise alone. As discussed in Section 3.7.4.1, subsonic and supersonic fixed-wingaircraft overflights are not expected to generate underwater sound levels that would result in harm of seaturtles (Eller and Cavanagh, 2000; Laney and Cavanagh, 2000).Sea turtles exposed to aircraft overflights may exhibit no response or behavioral reactions such as quickdiving. Any behavioral avoidance reaction would be short-term and would not permanently displaceanimals or result in physical harm. Fixed-wing aircraft overflights are not expected to result in chronicstress because it is extremely unlikely that individual animals would be repeatedly exposed to low altitudeoverflights. Therefore, fixed-wing aircraft overflights under the No Action Alternative may affect seaturtles, but the effects would be insignificant. In accordance with NEPA, fixed-wing aircraft overflightsover territorial waters would have no significant impact on sea turtles. Furthermore, fixed-wing aircraftoverflights over non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to sea turtles in accordance withEO 12114.Helicopter OverflightsApproximately 1,968 helicopter sorties would occur in the VACAPES Study Area annually under the NoAction Alternative. Helicopter overflights can occur throughout the VACAPES Study Area, but most3-286 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtleswould occur in W-50 and the lower Chesapeake Bay under the No Action Alternative. Unlike fixed-wingaircraft, helicopter training operations often occur at low altitudes (75 to 100 feet).Based on results of a comprehensive literature review, no information regarding sea turtle reactions tohelicopter overflights is available. However, based on knowledge of turtle auditory capabilities(Lenhardt, 1994, Bartol et al., 1999, Ridgway, 1969, Bartol and Musick, 2003; Bartol et al., 2002;Levenson et al., 2004), as well as their response to visual cues (Hazel et al., 2007) discussed in the fixedwingaircraft overflights section, it is reasonable to assume that if exposed, sea turtles may react tohelicopter overflights. Animals would only be exposed to the sound and water disturbance if they are ator near the water surface. The sound exposure levels would be relatively low to sea turtles since theyspend the majority or their time underwater. In addition to the auditory and visual cues, animals mayreact to the disturbance of the water by the downdraft. Sea turtles exposed to low-altitude helicopteroverflights under the No Action Alternative could exhibit a short-term behavioral response, but thesereactions would not permanently displace animals or result in physical harm. Helicopter overflights arenot expected to result in chronic stress because it is extremely unlikely that individual animals would berepeatedly exposed. Helicopter overflights under the No Action Alternative may affect sea turtles. Inaccordance with NEPA, helicopter overflights over territorial waters would have no significant impact onsea turtles. Furthermore, helicopter overflights over non-territorial waters would not cause significantharm to sea turtles in accordance with EO 12114.Towed Mine Warfare (MIW) DevicesAs described in Chapter 2 and Appendix D, Mine Warfare Exercises conducted in the Study Area includethe use of various underwater mine detection and countermeasures systems towed through the water byhelicopters flying approximately 75 feet above the water at low airspeeds. Approximately 1,358 towedMine Warfare (MIW) device sorties would occur under the No Action Alternative in the lowerChesapeake Bay and portions of the OPAREA closest to the Bay (areas within 45 nm of NS Norfolk, seeFigures 2.2-3 and 2.2-4). All five species of sea turtles may occur in areas where towed MIW deviceswould be used.Helicopter crew members monitor the water's surface during training to identify and avoid any objectsthat might damage the equipment. Based on the low flight altitudes and relatively slow air speeds, it islikely that crew members would be able see turtles at or near the surface and avoid them. Sea turtles at ornear the surface may also see or hear the oncoming helicopter or feel the downdraft, which could initiateavoidance behavior. The water column disturbance and sound created by the towed MIW device mayelicit short-term behavioral responses similar to those discussed for vessel movements and aircraftoverflights. The use of towed MIW devices under the No Action Alternative may affect sea turtles, butthe effects of strikes would be discountable because they are extremely unlikely to occur and the effectsof disturbance would be insignificant. In accordance with NEPA, the use of towed MIW devices interritorial waters would have no significant impact on sea turtles. Towed MIW devices would not be usedin non-territorial waters would have no effect on sea turtles in non-territorial waters in accordance withEO 12114.Weapons Firing/Non-explosive Practice Munitions UseNon-explosive Practice Munitions StrikesCurrent Navy training operations in the VACAPES Study Area include firing a variety of weapons andemploy a variety of non-explosive practice munitions and explosive rounds, including bombs, missiles,naval gun shells, cannon shells, small caliber ammunition, and grenades. The majority of ordnance firedin the Study Area consists of non-explosive practice munitions (Table 2.2-6). The analysis presented inthis section focuses on non-explosive practice munitions, while potential effects of explosive rounds are3-287 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlesanalyzed below in the explosions section. Training exercises that involve weapons firing and ordnanceuse take place in several training areas (see Table 2.2-6 for a summary of ordnance use by training area).Ordnance use is not authorized in W-110 and W-387 (total area approximately 4,168 nm 2 ) or in the lowerChesapeake Bay.Direct ordnance strikes and disturbance associated with sound from firing weapons are potential stressorsto sea turtles. Ingestion of expended ordnance is also a potential concern for some sea turtles and isanalyzed below under Military Expended Materials. The primary concern is potential exposure of seaturtles at or near the water's surface, which could result in injury or mortality.The potential for sea turtles to be struck by fired ordnance was evaluated using statistical probabilitymodeling as described in Appendix I. Model input values include ordnance use data (frequency and type)and sea turtle density data for each season and training area where ordnance use occurs. The model firstcalculates the probability of a turtle being struck and then calculates the number of exposures (seaturtle/ordnance strikes) for the given season and training area. The model outputs for sea turtle/ordnancestrikes are biased by the following assumptions and data/model limitations: The model is two-dimensional and assumes that all sea turtles would be at or near the surface100 percent of the time, when in fact, sea turtles spend the majority of their time under water - up to96 percent (Lutcavage and Lutz, 1997). The model does not take into account standard mitigation measures used by the Navy to avoid andminimize sea turtle/ordnance strikes. The model assumes the animal is stationary and does not account for any movement of the sea turtle orany potential avoidance of the training.The ordnance strike model is not expected to produce false negatives because the assumptions will morelikely produce an overestimate of impacts. A model output of less than one exposure provides a highlevel of certainty that sea turtles would not be struck and that ordnance strikes would have no effect onESA-listed sea turtles.Appendix I provides a breakdown of the model input/output values for each group of turtles by trainingarea where ordnance is fired or released. All model output values are substantially less than one(Appendix I), indicating that sea turtle/ordnance strikes are extremely unlikely to occur. The probabilityof a direct ordnance strike is further reduced by Navy mitigation measures (see Chapter 5). Nonexplosivepractice munitions would have no effect on sea turtles.Weapons Firing DisturbanceTransmitted Gunnery SoundA gun fired from a ship on the surface of the water propagates a blast wave away from the gun muzzle.This spherical blast wave reflects off and diffracts around objects in its path. As the blast wave hits thewater, it reflects back into the air, transmitting a sound pulse back into the water in proportions related tothe angle at which it hits the water.Propagating energy is transmitted into the water in a finite region below the gun. A critical angle (about13°, as measured from the vertical) can be calculated to determine the region of transmission in relation toa ship and gun (DoN, 2006).The largest proposed shell size for these operations is a five-inch shell. This will produce the highestpressure and all analysis will be done using this as a conservative measurement of produced andtransmitted pressure, assuming that all other smaller ammunition sizes would fall under these levels.Aboard the USS Cole in June 2000, a series of pressure measurements were taken during the firing of afive-inch gun. Average pressure measured approximately 200 decibels (dB) with reference pressure of3-288 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlesone micro Pascal (dB re: 1 μPa) at the point of the air and water interface. Based on the USS Cole data,down-range peak pressure levels were calculated to be less than 186 dB re: 1 μPa at 100 m (DoN, 2000)and as the distance increases, the pressure would decrease.In reference to the energy flux density (EFD) harassment criteria, the EFD levels (greatest in any 1/3octave band above 10 Hz) of a five inch gun muzzle blast were calculated to be 190 decibels withreference pressure of one microPascal squared in one second (dB re: 1 μPa 2 -sec) directly below the gunmuzzle decreasing to 170 dB re: 1 μPa 2 -sec at 100 m (328 feet) into the water (DoN, 2006). The rapiddissipation of the sound pressure wave coupled with the mitigation measures implemented by the Navy(see Chapter 5 for details) to detect sea turtles in the area prior to implementing operations, would resultin a blast from a gun muzzle having no effect on sea turtle species.Sound Transmitted Through Ship HullA gun blast will also transmit sound waves through the structure of the ship that can propagate into thewater. The 2000 study aboard the USS Cole also examined the rate of sound pressure propagationthrough the hull of a ship (DoN, 2000). The structurally borne component of the sound consisted of lowleveloscillations on the pressure time histories that preceded the main pulse, due to the air blastimpinging on the water (DoN, 2006).The structural component for a standard round was calculated to be 6.19 percent of the air blast(DoN, 2006). Given that this component of a gun blast was a small portion of the sound propagated intothe water from a gun blast, and far less than the sound from the gun muzzle itself, the transmission ofsound from a gun blast through the ship’s hull would have no effect on listed species.Underwater Detonations and Explosive OrdnanceExplosions that occur in the OPAREA are associated with training exercises that use explosive ordnance,including bombs (BOMBEX), missiles (MISSILEX), and naval gun shells (FIREX with IMPASS, 5-inchhigh explosive rounds), as well as underwater detonations associated with Mine Neutralization training(MINEX). Explosive ordnance use and underwater detonation is limited to a few specific training areas(see Table 2.2-7 for a summary of explosions by training area and Figure 3.7-5 for a summary of the areaswhere high explosives would be used). Explosive ordnance is not used in the lower Chesapeake Bay.An explosive analysis was conducted to estimate the number of sea turtles that could be exposed toimpacts from explosions. Appendix J contains a technical report describing the scientific basis, methods,assumptions, and all results of the explosive analysis. Tables 3.8-5 and 3.8-6 provide summaries of theexplosive analysis for the No Action Alternative, which indicates that all species of sea turtles would beexposed to impacts from explosions. The modeling results indicate that Kemp’s ridley, leatherback,loggerhead, and hardshell (which includes green, hawksbill, and unidentified hardshell turtles) sea turtlesmay be exposed to levels that could result in non-injurious (physiological and behavioral) and injuriouseffects. The modeling results also indicate that one Kemp’s ridley and one loggerhead sea turtle may beexposed to levels that could result in mortality.The analysis presented above indicates that underwater detonations and explosive ordnance use under theNo Action Alternative may affect ESA listed green, hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, andloggerhead sea turtles. Underwater detonations and HE ordnance use under the No Action Alternativewould affect individual sea turtles, but any effects observed at the population or species level would benegligible. Therefore, in accordance with NEPA, there would be no significant impact to sea turtlepopulations from explosive ordnance use during training exercises within territorial waters. Inaccordance with EO 12114, there would be no significant harm to sea turtle populations resulting fromexplosive ordnance use during training exercises in non-territorial waters.3-289 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesTABLE 3.8-5SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM SINGLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR SEA TURTLES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—NOSpecies/TrainingOperationACTION ALTERNATIVEPotentialExposures@ 182 dBre 1 Pa 2 -sor23 psi (peak)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msHardshell turtlesBOMBEX training 16 1 0MISSILEX Training 10 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 26 1 0Kemp’s Ridley turtleBOMBEX training 23 1 0MISSILEX Training 13 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 36 1 0Leatherback turtleBOMBEX training 1 0 0MISSILEX Training 1 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 2 0 0Loggerhead turtleBOMBEX training 26 1 0MISSILEX Training 15 0 0MINEX training 1 0 0Total Exposures 42 1 0TABLE 3.8-6SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM MULTIPLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR SEA TURTLES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—NOACTION ALTERNATIVESpecies/TrainingOperationPotentialExposures@ 177 dBre 1 Pa 2 -s(multipledetonations only)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msHardshell turtlesBOMBEX training 2,673 21 0FIREX training 9 0 0Total Exposures 2,682 21 0Kemp’s Ridley turtleBOMBEX training 3,806 30 1FIREX training 14 1 0Total Exposures 3,820 31 13-290 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesTABLE 3.8-6SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM MULTIPLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR SEA TURTLES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—NOSpecies/TrainingOperationACTION ALTERNATIVE (Continued)PotentialPotentialExposures Exposures @ 205@ 177 dBdBre 1 Pa 2 -s re 1 Pa 2 -s or 13(multiplepsi-msdetonations only)PotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msLeatherback turtleBOMBEX training 114 1 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 114 1 0Loggerhead turtleBOMBEX training 4,604 40 1FIREX training 14 1 0Total Exposures 4,618 41 1Military Expended MaterialsOverviewThe Navy uses a variety of Military Expended Materials during training exercises conducted in theVACAPES Study Area. The types and quantities of expended materials used and information regardingfate and transport of these materials within the marine environment are discussed in Section 3.2. Theanalyses presented in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.6 predict that the majority of the expended materials wouldrapidly sink to the sea floor, become encrusted by natural processes, and incorporated into the sea floor,with no significant accumulations in any particular area and no significant negative effects to waterquality or marine benthic communities. Nonetheless, sea turtles could be exposed to some expendedmaterials via contact and ingestion.Sea turtles of all sizes and species are known to ingest a wide variety of marine debris, which might bemistaken for prey. Plastic bags and plastic sheeting are most commonly ingested by sea turtles butballoons, Styrofoam beads, monofilament fishing line, and tar are also known to be ingested (NRC, 1990;Lutz, 1990; Bjorndal, 1994; Tomas, 2002). Marine debris could pass through the digestive tract and bevoided naturally without causing harm, or it could cause sublethal effects or lethal effects (Balazs, 1985).Sublethal effects may have a greater influence on populations than lethal effects through nutrient dilution.Nutrient dilution occurs when non-nutritive debris displaces nutritious food in the gut leading todecreased nutrient gain and ultimately slowing somatic growth or reducing reproductive output(McCauley and Bjorndal, 1999). Lutz (1990) found that hungry sea turtles will actively seek andconsume marine debris if other food is not available. In most cases, this debris passed through the gutwithin a few days, but latex was found to take up to 4 months to clear the intestinal system. Whileingestion of marine debris has been linked to sea turtle mortalities, sublethal effects are more common(NRC, 1990; Bjorndal, 1994; Tomas, 2002; McCauley and Bjorndal 1999).Ordnance Related MaterialsOrdnance related materials include various sizes of non-explosive practice munitions and shrapnel fromexplosive rounds (Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-6). These solid metal materials would quickly move through thewater column and settle to the sea floor where they could be available for ingestion by benthic foraging3-291 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlessea turtles. Ingestion of expended ordnance is not expected to occur in the water column becauseordnance quickly sinks.The probability of sea turtles ingesting expended ordnance would depend on factors such as the size ofthe materials, the likelihood the materials would be mistaken for prey, and the level benthic foraging thatoccurs in the impact area, which is a function of benthic habitat quality, prey availability, and speciesspecificforaging strategies. Some materials such as an intact non-explosive training bomb would be toolarge to be ingested by a sea turtle, but other materials such as cannon shells, small caliber ammunition,and shrapnel are small enough to be ingested. While the literature indicates that commonly ingesteditems such as drifting balloons or plastic bags might be mistaken as jellyfish or other prey, there are casesof animals ingesting items such as plastic caps that do not resemble prey (Barreiros, 2001). It is possiblethat expended ordnance colonized by epibenthic fauna could be mistaken for prey or that expendedordnance could be incidentally ingested while foraging on natural prey items.The amount of benthic foraging that occurs in areas where ordnance would be expended is unknown, buta majority of benthic foraging by green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, and loggerhead turtles is expected tooccur in nearshore areas (Lutcavage, et al., 1997). With the exception of R-6606 and W-50, all ordnanceuse would occur in areas more than 12 nm offshore where minimal benthic foraging is expected. R-6606is located from 0 to 3 nm offshore and the maximum depth is approximately 50 feet; suggesting thatbenthic foraging could occur throughout this area. However, only about 2 percent of the total roundswould be expended in R-6606 (about 20,000 cannon shells, small caliber, and grenades per year, seeTable 2.2-6). Assuming even distribution, the concentration of rounds expended per year in R-6606would be 611/nm 2 or 0.00002/ft 2 . W-50 is located from 3 to 12 nm offshore and water depth ranges fromabout 50 feet to 65 feet. About 25 percent of the total rounds would be expended in W-50 (about 261,220cannon shells, small caliber, and grenades per year, see Table 2.2-6). Assuming even distribution, theconcentration of rounds expended per year in W-50 would be 2,122/nm 2 or 0.00006/ft 2 . The probabilityof a benthic foraging sea turtle to ingest ordnance appears to be low based on the low environmentalconcentrations. Ingestion of ordnance under the No Action Alternative may affect green, hawksbill,Kemp's ridley, and loggerhead turtles.Leatherbacks feed throughout the epipelagic and into the mesopelagic zones of the water column(Davenport, 1988; Eckert, et al., 1989; Grant and Ferrell, 1993; Salmon, et al., 2004; James, etal., 2005a). Prey is predominantly gelatinous zooplankton such as cnidarians (jellyfish andsiphonophores) and tunicates (salps and pyrosomas) (NMFS and USFWS, 1992; Grant and Ferrell, 1993;Bjorndal, 1997; James and Herman, 2001; Salmon, et al., 2004). Leatherbacks would not ingestexpended ordnance because they are not expected to feed in the benthic environment.Ingestion of ordnance would have no effect on leatherback turtles, but may affect other sea turtle species.In accordance with NEPA, ordnance related materials would have no significant impact on sea turtles interritorial waters. Furthermore, ordnance related materials would not cause significant harm to sea turtlesin non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.Target Related MaterialsA variety of at-sea targets are used in the OPAREA, ranging from high-tech remotely operated airborneand surface targets (e.g., airborne drones and Seaborne Powered Targets) to low-tech floating at-seatargets (e.g., inflatable targets, 55-gallon metal drums) and airborne towed banners. Many of the targetsare designed to be recovered for reuse and are not destroyed during training because ordnance is set todetonate before impacting the target. The only expendable airborne targets used in the OPAREA areTactical Air-Launched Decoys, which are non-powered, constructed of extruded aluminum, weigh about400 pounds, and are about 7 feet long. Expendable targets such as floating at-sea inflatable targets arerecovered after use and properly disposed of onshore. Some targets such as 55-gallon metal drums cannot3-292 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlesbe recovered and sink to the sea floor after use. Unrecoverable floating materials generated by target useare expected to be minimal. Descriptions of the targets used in the OPAREA and information on fate andtransport are provided in Section 3.2.As discussed above for ordnance related materials, turtles that feed on or near the bottom may encounteran expended target while feeding; however, the size of the target would prohibit any listed species fromingesting it. Therefore, the use of targets under the No Action Alternative would have no effect on seaturtles. In accordance with NEPA, target-related material would have no significant impact on sea turtlesin territorial waters. Furthermore, target-related material would not cause significant harm to sea turtlesin non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.Chaff Fibers, End-caps, and PistonsThe background information and general exposure analysis presented in Section 3.7.4.1 for marinemammals and chaff is also applicable to sea turtles and is not repeated here. Similar to marine mammals,sea turtles could be exposed to chaff through direct body contact, inhalation, and ingestion. Sea turtlesare not expected to respond to direct contact with chaff or inhalation of chaff. In addition, any changes inwater quality from chaff use would be negligible and would not be expected to affect sea turtles.Based on the small size of chaff fibers, sea turtles would not confuse the fibers with prey items orpurposefully feed on them. However, sea turtles could occasionally ingest low concentrations of chaffincidentally while feeding on prey items on the surface, in the water column, or on the bottom. While nostudies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of chaff ingestion on sea turtles or other reptiles, theeffects are expected to be negligible based the low concentrations that could reasonably be ingested, thesmall size of chaff fibers, and available data on the toxicity of chaff and aluminum (as described inSection 3.7.4.1). A young sea turtle weighing 1 kg would need to ingest more than 83,000 chaff fibersper day to receive a daily aluminum dose equal to 1,000 mg/kg (based on chaff consisting of 40 percentaluminum by weight and a 150-g chaff canister containing five million fibers). An adult loggerhead turtleweighing 113 kg or more would need to ingest more than nine million chaff fibers per day to receive adaily aluminum dose equal to 1,000 mg/kg. It is highly unlikely that a sea turtle would ingest a toxic doseof chaff based on the anticipated environmental concentration of chaff (1.8 fibers/ft 2 for a worst-casescenario of 360 chaff cartridges simultaneously released at a single drop point).Silicon dioxide, also known as silica, is an abundant compound in nature that is prevalent in soil, rocks,and sand (USAF, 1997). Silicon is the second most abundant element in the earth's crust, making upapproximately 28.2 percent by weight (Jefferson Lab, 2007). As such, the diet of benthic foraging marineanimals that routinely ingest sediment while feeding likely contains relatively high concentrations ofsilicon dioxide. Silicon dioxide is chemically unreactive in the environment (USEPA, 1991) and theacute and chronic oral toxicity of silicon dioxide is low. No significant toxicity or mortality has beenreported in animals given doses of up to 3,000 mg/kg of body weight per day (EVM, 2003). No observedadverse effect levels of 2,500 and 7,500 mg/kg of body weight per day were obtained for mice and rats,respectively in long-term studies (up to 24 months) (Takizawa et al., 1988).The potential also exists for sea turtles to ingest chaff end-caps and pistons. However, the probability ofsea turtles ingesting plastic end-caps and pistons is low because these materials sink in saltwater(Spargo, 2007) and the environmental concentration would be low (approximately 0.6 to 2.0pieces/nm 2 /year). A majority of the end-caps and pistons are expected to sink in offshore, deepwaterareas and ultimately become incorporated into bottom sediments where minimal turtle foraging occurs. Avery small percentage of the end-caps and pistons released could land on Sargassum mats or betransported by currents to benthic foraging areas, where the probability of ingestion would be higher.Since young pelagic turtles feed indiscriminately within Sargassum mats and are known to ingestanthropogenic debris (McCauley and Bjorndal, 1999), it is possible that sea turtles would be exposed to3-293 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlesand ingest endcaps and pistons. However, the overall probability of turtles ingesting an end-cap or pistonappears to be extremely unlikely.If ingested, it is likely the small (1.3-inch diameter, 0.13-inch thick) round end-cap or piston would passthrough the digestive tract of adult turtles without causing harm, as with other instances of debrisingestion (Balazs, 1985). Although ingestion of anthropogenic debris can result in serious injury ordeath, sea turtles are known to ingest small plastic items without noticeable negative consequence tohealth and viability (Barreiros, 2001; Mascarenhas, 2004). Based on their smaller size, subadult andjuvenile turtles would be more susceptible to digestive tract blockage if they ingested these materials.Should a sea turtle encounter and ingest a discarded piston or endcap, the animal could experience effectsranging from sublethal effects such as nutritional dilution (McCauley and Bjorndal, 1999) to mortality(NRC, 1990; Bjorndal, 1994; Tomas, 2002). However, these effects are not expected because ingestionof end-caps and pistons would be extremely unlikely due to the low concentration of 0.6 pieces/nm 2 /year.The effects of chaff use on sea turtles would be discountable and/or insignificant. Chaff use under the NoAction Alternative may affect ESA-listed sea turtles, but the effects would be discountable and/orinsignificant. In accordance with NEPA, chaff use would have no significant impact on sea turtles interritorial waters. Furthermore, chaff use would not cause significant harm to sea turtles in non-territorialwaters in accordance with EO 12114.Self-Protection FlaresSelf-protection flares consist of a magnesium/Teflon formulation that, when ignited and released from anaircraft, burn for a short period of time (less than 10 seconds) at very high temperatures. Flares releaseheat and light to disrupt tracking of Navy aircraft by enemy infrared tracking devices or weapons. Flaresare designed to burn completely, thus reducing the amount of material that falls to the sea surface. Undernormal operations, the only material that would enter the water would be a small, round plastic end-caps(approximately 1.4 inch diameter). About 465 self-protection flares would be used in the OPAREA(W-72 and W-386) per year under the No Action Alternative.An extensive literature review and controlled experiments conducted by the Air Force revealed that selfprotectionflare use poses little risk to the environment or animals (USAF, 1997). Nonetheless, sea turtleswithin the OPAREA could be exposed to light generated by the flares and flare plastic end-caps. Thelight generated by flares would have no effect on sea turtles based on short burn time, relatively highaltitudes where they are used, and the widely dispersed and infrequent use. Similar to chaff end-caps andpistons, sea turtles could potentially ingest flare end-caps. Ingestion of flare end-caps under the NoAction Alternative may affect sea turtles, but the effects would be considered discountable becauseingestion is extremely unlikely to occur based on the low number of end-caps (465 per year). Inaccordance with NEPA, flares would have no significant impact on sea turtles in territorial waters.Furthermore, flares would not cause significant harm to sea turtles in non-territorial waters in accordancewith EO 12114.Marine MarkersThe MK-25 and MK-58 marine markers produce chemical flames and regions of surface smoke and areused in various training exercises to mark a surface position to simulate divers, ships, and points ofcontact on the surface of the ocean. When the accompanying cartridge is broken, an area of smoke isreleased. The smoke dissipates in the air having little effect on the marine environment. The markerburns similar to a flare, producing a flame until all burn components have been used. While the lightgenerated from the marker is bright enough to be seen up to three miles away in ideal conditions, theresulting light would either be reflected off the water’s surface or would enter the water and attenuate inbrightness over depth. The point source of the light would be focused and be less intense than if ananimal were to look to the surface and encounter the direct path of the sun. The MK-58 is composed of3-294 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlestin and contains two red phosphorus pyrotechnic candles and a seawater-activated battery. The MK-58marine marker is 21.78 inches long and 5.03 inches in diameter, weighs 12.8 lbs, and produces a yellowflame and white smoke for a minimum of 40 minutes and a maximum of 60 minutes (The OrdnanceShop, 2007). The marker itself is not designed to be recovered and would eventually sink to the bottomand become encrusted and/or incorporated into the sediments. Approximately 300 marine markers wouldbe used in the Study Area under the No Action Alternative.Expended marine markers are a potential ingestion hazard for sea turtles while they are floating or afterthey sink to the bottom. However, the probability of ingestion is extremely low based on the low numberof marine markers expended per year (300) and the low concentration (0.01/nm 2 /year). Marine markeringestion under the No Action Alternative may affect sea turtles, but the effects would be considereddiscountable because ingestion is extremely unlikely to occur. In accordance with NEPA, marine markerswould have no significant impact on sea turtles in territorial waters. Furthermore, marine markers wouldnot cause significant harm to sea turtles in non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.3.8.3.4 Alternative 1Vessels MovementsThe number of operations involving vessel movements would increase in the VACAPES Study Areaunder Alternative 1 with a total of 1,420 steaming days per year; an increase of one percent over the NoAction Alternative (Table 2.2-5). These changes would result in increased potential for short-termbehavioral reactions to vessels. Potential for collision would increase slightly compared to the No ActionAlternative; however, Navy mitigation measures (see Chapter 5) would reduce the probability.Vessel movements under Alternative 1 may affect sea turtles. In accordance with NEPA, vesselmovements in territorial waters would have no significant impact on sea turtles. Furthermore, vesselmovements in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to sea turtles in accordance withEO 12114.Aircraft OverflightsThe number of operations involving aircraft overflights (both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters) wouldincrease in the VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). The number of fixed-wingsorties under Alternative 1 would increase 10 percent to 6,558 and helicopter sorties would increase 88percent to 3,463. These changes would result in increased exposures of sea turtles to overflights.Elevated numbers of overflights would increase the potential for behavioral disturbance due to sound,shadow-effects, and/or, in the case of helicopters, water column disturbance. Behavioral reactions tofixed-wing and helicopter overflights would be the same as discussed under the No Action Alternative.Aircraft overflights under Alternative 1 may affect sea turtles, but the effects are expected to beinsignificant. In accordance with NEPA, aircraft overflights over territorial waters would have nosignificant impact on sea turtles. Furthermore, aircraft overflights over non-territorial waters would notcause significant harm to sea turtles in accordance with EO 12114.Towed Mine Warfare (MIW) devicesTowed Mine Warfare (MIW) device sorties would increase by 60 percent to 2,172 per year underAlternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). The additional sorties would increase the potential for sea turtles to be struckby a towed MIW device. As noted in the analysis of the No Action Alternative, there are no documentedinstances of this occurring. Helicopter crew members monitor the water's surface during training toidentify and avoid any objects that might damage the equipment. Based on the low flight altitudes andrelatively slow air speeds, it is likely that crew members would be able see turtles at or near the surfaceand avoid them. Sea turtles at or near the surface would likely see or hear the oncoming helicopter or feelthe downdraft, which could initiate avoidance behavior. The water column disturbance and sound created3-295 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlesby the towed MIW device would likely elicit short-term behavioral responses similar to those discussedfor vessel movements and aircraft overflights. The use of towed MIW devices under Alternative 1 mayaffect sea turtles, but the effects of strikes would be discountable because they are extremely unlikely tooccur and the effects of disturbance would be insignificant. In accordance with NEPA, the use of toweddevices in territorial waters would have no significant impact on sea turtles. Towed MIW devices wouldnot be used in non-territorial waters and would have no effect on sea turtles in non-territorial waters inaccordance with EO 12114.Weapons Firing/Non-explosive Practice Munitions UseNon-explosive Practice Munitions StrikesThe amount of ordnance fired would increase in the VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 1(Table 2.2-5 and 2.2-6). These changes would result in increased potential exposure for sea turtleordnance strikes compared to baseline conditions. However, ordnance strike modeling predicts thatsubstantially less than one sea turtle would be exposed to direct ordnance strikes under Alternative 1 (seeAppendix I). Additionally, Navy mitigation measures further reduce the probability of ordnance-relatedexposure. The use of non-explosive practice munitions under Alternative 1 would have no effect on seaturtles.Weapons Firing DisturbanceThe number of weapons firings in the VACAPES Study Area would increase under Alternative 1. Basedon the discussion under the No Action Alternative above, firing of weapons would not result in anexposure of sea turtles, additional weapon firings would have no effect on sea turtles.Underwater Detonations and Explosive Ordnance UseThe number and location of explosions occurring in the Study Area would not change underAlternative 1, with the exception of Hellfire missiles, 5 lb and 20 lb net explosive weight underwaterdetonation charges (Table 2.2-7 and Figure 3.7-5). Under Alternative 1, 30 additional Hellfire missileexplosions would occur in the OPAREA, 30 additional 5 lb underwater detonations and 12 additional 20lb underwater detonation charges would occur in W-50 under Alternative 1.An explosive analysis was conducted to estimate the number of sea turtles that could be exposed toimpacts from explosions. Appendix J contains a technical report describing the scientific basis, methods,and assumptions of the explosive analysis. Tables 3.8-7 and 3.8-8 provide summaries of the explosiveanalysis for Alternative 1. The modeling results indicate that Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, loggerhead, andhardshell (which includes green, hawksbill, and unidentified hardshell turtles) sea turtles may be exposedto levels that could result in non-injurious (physiological and behavioral) and injurious effects. Themodeling results also indicate that one Kemp’s ridley and one loggerhead sea turtle may be exposed tolevels that could result in mortality.The analysis presented above indicates that underwater detonations and explosive ordnance use under theAlternative 1 may affect ESA listed green, hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley, and loggerhead seaturtles. Underwater detonations and HE ordnance use under the No Action Alternative would affectindividual sea turtles, but any effects observed at the population or species level would be negligible.Therefore, in accordance with NEPA, there would be no significant impact to sea turtle populations fromexplosive ordnance use during training exercises within territorial waters. In accordance with EO 12114,there would be no significant harm to sea turtle populations resulting from explosive ordnance use duringtraining exercises in non-territorial waters.3-296 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISMilitary Expended MaterialsChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesOrdnance Related MaterialsThe amount of ordnance fired would increase in the VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 1(Table 2.2-5 and 2.2-6). Similar to the No Action Alternative, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, andloggerhead turtles would potentially be exposed to expended ordnance via ingestion from foraging off thebottom. Leatherback turtles would not ingest expended ordnance because they do not feed on the bottom.Therefore, ingestion of ordnance would have no effect on leatherback turtles under Alternative 1.TABLE 3.8-7SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM SINGLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR SEA TURTLES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—ALTERNATIVE 1Species/TrainingOperationPotentialExposures@ 182 dBre 1 Pa 2 -sor23 psi (peak)PotentialExposures @205 dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @30.5 psi-msHardshell turtlesBOMBEX training 16 1 0MISSILEX Training 11 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 27 1 0Kemp’s Ridley turtleBOMBEX training 23 1 0MISSILEX Training 15 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 38 1 0Leatherback turtleBOMBEX training 1 0 0MISSILEX Training 1 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 2 0 0Loggerhead turtleBOMBEX training 26 1 0MISSILEX Training 18 1 0MINEX training 3 0 0Total Exposures 47 2 03-297 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesTABLE 3.8-8SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM MULTIPLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR SEA TURTLES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—Species/TrainingOperationALTERNATIVE 1PotentialExposures@ 182 dBre 1 Pa 2 -sor23 psi (peak)PotentialExposures @205 dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @30.5 psi-msHardshell turtlesBOMBEX training 2,673 21 0FIREX training 9 0 0Total Exposures 2,682 21 0Kemp’s Ridley turtleBOMBEX training 3,806 30 1FIREX training 14 1 0Total Exposures 3,820 31 1Leatherback turtleBOMBEX training 114 1 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 114 1 0Loggerhead turtleBOMBEX training 4,604 40 1FIREX training 14 1 0Total Exposures 4,618 41 1As discussed for the No Action Alternative, benthic foraging by sea turtles is more likely to occur in R-6606 and W-50 compared to other areas farther offshore. The number of rounds expended in R-6606would increase from 20,054 to 22,060 per year, and the resulting concentration of rounds per year wouldbe 673/nm 2 or 0.00002/ft 2 . The number of rounds expended in W-50 would increase from 261,226 to330,650 per year, and the resulting concentration of rounds per year would be 2,686/nm 2 or 0.00007/ft 2 .These concentration increases are negligible when compared to the No Action Alternative. Theprobability of a benthic foraging sea turtle to ingest ordnance would continue to be low underAlternative 1. Ingestion of ordnance under Alternative 1 may affect green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, andloggerhead turtles. In accordance with NEPA, ordnance related materials would have no significantimpact on sea turtles in territorial waters. Furthermore, ordnance related materials would not causesignificant harm to sea turtles in non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.Target Related MaterialsThe number of expendable targets used in the Study Area would increase by about 10 percent per yearunder Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). Analysis of both remotely operated and floating at-sea targets underthe No Action Alternative indicates that the use of targets would have no effect on listed sea turtles due tothe large size of the target which would prohibit any sea turtle from ingesting it. Increased numbers ofthese targets under Alternative 1 would have no effect on listed sea turtles.Chaff Fibers, End-caps, and PistonsThe amount of chaff used in the OPAREA would increase by about 12 percent per year underAlternative 1 (Tables 2.2-5 and 3.7-28). This increase in chaff use would result in negligible increases in3-298 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtlesrelative environmental concentrations of chaff fibers, end-caps, and pistons (Table 3.7-28). Similar to theNo Action Alternative, effects of direct body contact, inhalation, and any changes to water or sedimentquality would continue to be insignificant. The potential for sea turtles to ingest chaff fibers wouldincrease under Alternative 1, but ingestion of a toxic dose (greater than 1,000 mg/kg) would continue tobe highly unlikely based on the anticipated low environmental concentration (1.8 fibers/ft 2 ). Sea turtlescould ingest chaff end-caps and pistons under Alternative 1, but the likelihood of ingestion remainsextremely low based on the low environmental concentration (0.7 to 2.2 pieces/nm 2 ). Chaff use underAlternative 1 may affect ESA-listed sea turtles, however the effects would be insignificant ordiscountable. In accordance with NEPA, chaff use would have no significant impact on sea turtles interritorial waters. Furthermore, chaff use would not cause significant harm to sea turtles in non-territorialwaters in accordance with EO 12114.Self-Protection FlaresThe number of self-protection flares used in the Study Area would increase under Alternative 1 from465 to 825 per year, a 77 percent increase. Similar to the No Action Alternative, ingestion of flare endcapsunder Alternative 1 may affect sea turtles, but the effects would be considered discountable becauseingestion is extremely unlikely to occur based on the low number of end-caps (825 per year). Inaccordance with NEPA, flare use would have no significant impact on sea turtles in territorial waters.Furthermore, flare use would not cause significant harm to sea turtles in non-territorial waters inaccordance with EO 12114.Marine MarkersThe number of marine markers used in the Study Area would increase under Alternative 1 from 300 to495 per year. The probability of a sea turtle ingesting an expended marine marker would be extremelylow based on the low concentration in the Study Area (0.02/nm 2 /year). Marine marker ingestion underAlternative 1 may affect sea turtles, but the effects would be considered discountable because ingestion isextremely unlikely to occur. In accordance with NEPA, marine markers would have no significantimpact on sea turtles in territorial waters. Furthermore, marine markers would not cause significant harmto sea turtles in non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.3.8.3.5 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)Vessel MovementsVessel movements that would occur under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). Therefore, the analysis presented above for Alternative 1 is applicable to Alternative 2. Vesselmovements under Alternative 2 may affect sea turtles. In accordance with NEPA, vessel movements interritorial waters would have no significant impact on sea turtles. Furthermore, vessel movements in nonterritorialwaters would not cause significant harm to sea turtles in accordance with ExecutiveOrder 12114.Aircraft OverflightsAs detailed in Chapter 2 and Table 2.2-5, Alternative 2 would include 324 less fixed-wing sorties and 60additional helicopter sorties than Alternative 1. These changes would result in an overall decrease inexposures of sea turtles to aircraft overflights from Alternative 1. Behavioral reactions to fixed-wing andhelicopter overflights would be the same as discussed under the No Action Alternative. Aircraftoverflights under Alternative 2 may affect sea turtles, but the effects are expected to be insignificant. Inaccordance with NEPA, aircraft overflights over territorial waters would have no significant impact onsea turtles. Furthermore, aircraft overflights over non-territorial waters would not cause significant harmto sea turtles in accordance with Executive Order 12114.3-299 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISTowed Mine Warfare (MIW) DevicesChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesAs detailed in Chapter 2 and Table 2.2-5, Alternative 2 would include an additional 50 Towed MIWdevice sorties over Alternative 1. Therefore, the potential for sea turtles to be struck by towed deviceswould increase. Helicopter crew members monitor the water's surface during training to identify andavoid any objects that might damage the equipment. Based on the low flight altitudes and relatively slowair speeds, it is likely that crew members would be able see turtles at or near the surface and avoid them.Sea turtles at or near the surface would likely see or hear the oncoming helicopter or feel the downdraft,which could initiate avoidance behavior. The water column disturbance and sound created by the towedMIW device would likely elicit short-term behavioral responses similar to those discussed for vesselmovements and aircraft overflights. The use of towed MIW devices under Alternative 1 may affect seaturtles, but the effects of collisions would be discountable because they are extremely unlikely to occurand the effects of disturbance would be insignificant. In accordance with NEPA, the use of towed devicesin territorial waters would have no significant impact on sea turtles. Towed MIW devices would not beused in non-territorial waters and would have no effect on sea turtles in non-territorial waters inaccordance with EO 12114.Mine Warfare Training Area Establishment (Non-explosive Mine Shape Deployment/Recovery)As discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2.5), new Mine Warfare Training Areas would be designated in W-50 A/C and the lower Chesapeake Bay under Alternative 2. This section addresses potential effects onsea turtles associated with establishing and maintaining these training areas (i.e., non-explosive mineshape deployment/recovery). The effects of conducting training exercises in these areas are analyzedunder aircraft overflights, towed MIW devices, and explosions.The effects of Mine Warfare Training Area establishment would be limited to short-term and localizeddisturbances of the water column and benthic habitat associated with deployment and recovery of nonexplosivemine shapes. As discussed in Chapter 2, the mine shape assembly would include a concreteanchor, mooring line, and the non-explosive mine shape. Approximately 20 permanent concrete anchorswould be placed in the proposed Mine Warfare Training Area in W-50 A/C and approximately 60 VEMSwould be placed in the proposed training areas in the lower Chesapeake Bay (see Figures 2.2-2, 2.2-3 and2.2-4 for specific locations). In some cases the entire assembly (mine shape, mooring line, and anchor)would be deployed concurrently from a boat or aircraft and recovered immediately following the exercise.In other cases concrete anchors would be permanently placed on the sea floor and divers would attach themooring lines and mine shapes for specific exercises. The non-explosive mine shape deployment andrecovery process would have no effect on sea turtles. The mooring lines would not present anentanglement risk for sea turtles because they would be held taut by the anchor and mine shape. Mooringlines would only be left in place for as long as the mine shape is in the water. Establishment of MineWarfare Training Areas under Alternative 2 would have no effect on sea turtles.Weapons Firing/Non-explosive Practice Munitions UseNon-explosive Practice Munitions StrikesThe amount of ordnance fired would increase in the VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 2 (Table2.2-5 and 2.2-6). These changes would result in increased potential exposure for sea turtle ordnancestrikes compared to baseline conditions. However, ordnance strike modeling predicts that substantiallyless than one sea turtle would be exposed to direct ordnance strikes under Alternative 1 (see Appendix I).Additionally, Navy mitigation measures further reduce the probability of ordnance-related exposure. Theuse of non-explosive practice munitions under Alternative 1 would have no effect on sea turtles.3-300 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISUnderwater Detonations and Explosive Ordnance UseChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesExplosions associated with BOMBEX that would occur under Alternative 2 would decrease substantiallyfrom Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative, by 96 percent (Table 2.2-7). See Figure 3.7-6 for asummary of areas where high explosives would be used under Alternative 2.An explosive analysis was conducted to estimate the number of sea turtles that could be exposed toimpacts from explosions. Appendix J contains a technical report describing the scientific basis, methods,assumptions, and all results of the explosive analysis. Tables 3.8-9 and 3.8-10 provide summaries of theexplosive analysis for Alternatives 2, which indicates that all species of sea turtles would be exposed toimpacts from explosions. The modeling results indicate that Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, loggerhead, andhardshell (which includes green, hawksbill, and unidentified hardshell turtles) sea turtles would beexposed to levels that could result in non-injurious (physiological and behavioral) effects. The modelingresults indicate that Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead, and hardshell (which includes green, hawksbill, andunidentified hardshell turtles) sea turtles would be exposed to levels that could result in injurious(physiological) effects. The modeling results indicate that no sea turtles would be exposed to levels thatcould result in mortality under this alternative.TABLE 3.8-9SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM SINGLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR SEA TURTLES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—ALTERNATIVE 2Species/TrainingOperationPotentialExposures@ 182 dBre 1 Pa 2 -sor23 psi (peak)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msHardshell turtlesMISSILEX Training 10 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 10 0 0Kemp’s Ridley turtleMISSILEX Training 15 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 15 0 0Leatherback turtleMISSILEX Training 0 0 0MINEX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 0 0 0Loggerhead turtleMISSILEX Training 16 1 0MINEX training 3 0 0Total Exposures 19 1 03-301 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesTABLE 3.8-10SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM MULTIPLE DETONATION EXPLOSIVEORDNANCE (PER YEAR) FOR SEA TURTLES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA—Species/TrainingOperationALTERNATIVE 2PotentialExposures@ 177 dBre 1 Pa 2 -s(multipledetonations only)PotentialExposures @ 205dBre 1 Pa 2 -s or 13psi-msPotentialExposures @ 30.5psi-msHardshell turtlesBOMBEX training 327 3 0FIREX training 9 0 0Total Exposures 336 3 0Kemp’s Ridley turtleBOMBEX training 613 5 0FIREX training 14 1 0Total Exposures 627 6 0Leatherback turtleBOMBEX training 10 0 0FIREX training 0 0 0Total Exposures 10 0 0Loggerhead turtleBOMBEX training 482 4 0FIREX training 14 1 0Total Exposures 496 5 0Military Expended MaterialsMilitary Expended Materials that would occur under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1(Table 2.2-5). Therefore, the analysis presented above for Alternative 1 is applicable to Alternative 2.Military Expended Materials under Alternative 2 may affect sea turtles. In accordance with NEPA,Military Expended Materials in territorial waters would have no significant impact on sea turtles.Furthermore, Military Expended Materials in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm tosea turtles in accordance with Executive Order 12114.Summary of Effects for Alternative 2: The analysis presented above indicates that underwater detonationsand explosive ordnance use under the Alternative 2 may affect ESA listed green, hawksbill, leatherback,Kemp’s ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles. Underwater detonations and HE ordnance use under the NoAction Alternative would affect individual sea turtles, but any effects observed at the population orspecies level would be negligible. Therefore, in accordance with NEPA, there would be no significantimpact to sea turtle populations from explosive ordnance use during training exercises within territorialwaters. In accordance with EO 12114, there would be no significant harm to sea turtle populationsresulting from explosive ordnance use during training exercises in non-territorial waters.3.8.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThe Navy is working with NMFS through the ESA Section 7 consultation process to ensure thatunavoidable significant effects to sea turtles do not result from implementation of the proposed action.3-302 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtles3.8.5 Summary of Environmental Effects3.8.5.1 Endangered Species ActTable 3.8-11 provides a summary of the Navy's determination of effect for Alternative 2 (the PreferredAlternative) for federally listed sea turtles that occur in the VACAPES Study Area. The analysispresented indicates that actions may affect ESA-listed sea turtles. Accordingly, the Navy requestedformal ESA Section 7 consultation with NMFS to ensure the proposed action would not likely jeopardizeESA-listed sea turtles. The Study Area does not contain designated critical habitat for any listed species.Consequently, the proposed action would have no effect on critical habitat.TABLE 3.8-11SUMMARY OF THE NAVY’S DETERMINATION OF EFFECT FOR FEDERALLY LISTEDSEA TURTLES THAT OCCUR IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA – ALTERNATIVE 2StressorGreen HawksbillLeatherback LoggerheadTurtle TurtleTurtleTurtleVessel MovementsVessel Disturbance May Affect MayAffectVessel Strikes May Affect MayAffectAircraft OverflightsAircraft Disturbance May Affect MayAffectTowed MIW DevicesTowed MIW deviceStrikesMine Warfare Training AreaEstablishmentNon-explosive MineShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsWeapons FiringDisturbanceMay AffectNoEffectMayAffectNoEffectKemp'sRidleyTurtleMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectNoEffectNoEffectNoEffectNoEffectNoEffectOrdnance Strikes No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No EffectUndet and HE OrdnanceLive Ordnance May Affect MayAffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectUnderwater Detonation May Affect MayAffectMilitary ExpendedMaterialsOrdnance Related May Affect MayMaterialsAffectTarget Related Materials NoEffectNoEffectChaff May Affect MayAffectSelf Protection Flares May Affect MayAffectMarine Markers May Affect MayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffectNoEffectMayAffectMayAffectMayAffect3-303 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea Turtles3.8.5.2 National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114As summarized in Table 3.8-12, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would haveno significant impact on sea turtles in territorial waters in accordance with NEPA. Furthermore, inaccordance with EO 12114 the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would not causesignificant harm to sea turtles in non-territorial waters.Alternative andStressorNo ActionTABLE 3.8-12SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVESON SEA TURTLES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREASummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionVessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed MIW DevicesNon-Explosive MineShape Deployment/RecoveryWeapons Firing/NonexplosivePracticeMunitions UseUnderwaterDetonations andExplosive OrdnanceMilitary ExpendedMaterialsNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)Short-term behavioral responses fromgeneral vessel disturbance. Potential forinjury or mortality from vessel strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses to overflights. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Low potential for towed MIW devicestrikes. No long-term population-leveleffects.No effect.No effect based on extremely lowprobability of direct strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses. Potential for injury ormortality within limited ZOI.Low potential for ingestion of chaffand/or flare plastic end-caps and pistons.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Short-term behavioral responses fromgeneral vessel disturbance. Potential forinjury or mortality from vessel strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses to overflights. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Not applicableNot applicable.No effect based on extremely lowprobability of direct strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses. Potential for injury ormortality within limited ZOI.Low potential for ingestion of chaffand/or flare plastic end-caps and pistons.Impact Conclusion No significant impact to sea turtles. No significant harm to sea turtles.Alternative 1Short-term behavioral responses from Short-term behavioral responses fromVessel Movementsgeneral vessel disturbance. Potential for general vessel disturbance. Potential forinjury or mortality from vessel strikes. injury or mortality from vessel strikes.Slight increase compared to No Action. Slight increase compared to No Action.Aircraft OverflightsTowed MIW DevicesPotential for short-term behavioralresponses to overflights. Slight increasecompared to No Action. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Low potential for towed MIW devicestrikes. Slight increase compared to NoAction. No long-term population-leveleffects.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses to overflights. Slight increasecompared to No Action. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Not applicable.3-304 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.8 – Sea TurtlesTABLE 3.8-12(Continued)SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON SEATURTLES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREASummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative andStressorNon-Explosive MineShape Deployment/RecoveryWeapons Firing/NonexplosivePracticeMunitions UseUnderwaterDetonations andExplosive OrdnanceMilitary ExpendedMaterialsNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)No effect.No effect based on extremely lowprobability of direct strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses. Potential for injury ormortality within limited ZOI. Slightincrease compared to No Action.Low potential for ingestion of chaffand/or flare plastic end-caps and pistons.Slight increase compared to No Action.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Not applicable.No effect based on extremely lowprobability of direct strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses. Potential for injury ormortality within limited ZOI. Slightincrease compared to No Action.Low potential for ingestion of chaffand/or flare plastic end-caps and pistons.Slight increase compared to No Action.Impact Conclusion No significant impact to sea turtles. No significant harm to sea turtles.Alternative 2Short-term behavioral responses from Short-term behavioral responses fromVessel Movementsgeneral vessel disturbance. Potential for general vessel disturbance. Potential forinjury or mortality from vessel strikes. injury or mortality from vessel strikes.Slight increase compared to No Action. Slight increase compared to No Action.Aircraft OverflightsTowed MIW DevicesNon-Explosive MineShape Deployment/RecoveryWeapons Firing/NonexplosivePracticeMunitions UseUnderwaterDetonations andExplosive OrdnanceMilitary ExpendedMaterialsPotential for short-term behavioralresponses to overflights. Slight increasecompared to No Action. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Low potential for towed MIW devicestrikes. Slight increase compared to NoAction. No long-term population-leveleffects.No effect.No effect based on extremely lowprobability of direct strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses. Potential for injury withinlimited ZOI. Slight increase compared toNo Action.Low potential for ingestion of chaffand/or flare plastic end-caps and pistons.Slight increase compared to No Action.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses to overflights. Slight increasecompared to No Action. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Not applicable.Not applicable.No effect based on extremely lowprobability of direct strikes.Potential for short-term behavioralresponses. Potential for injury withinlimited ZOI. Substantial decreasecompared to No Action.Low potential for ingestion of chaffand/or flare plastic end-caps and pistons.Slight increase compared to No Action.Impact Conclusion No significant impact to sea turtles. No significant harm to sea turtles.3-305 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.9 FISH AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITATChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Essential Fish Habitat3.9.1 Introduction and Methods3.9.1.1 Regulatory FrameworkThe primary laws that make up the regulatory framework for fish and essential fish habitat (EFH) aredescribed in detail in Appendix K and include the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act (MSFCMA) , the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), and the Endangered Species Act(ESA).One of the most significant mandates in the SFA is the EFH provision, which provides the means toconserve fish habitat. The SFA requires that regional fishery management councils (FMC) identify EFHfor federally managed species (i.e., species covered under fishery management plans [FMP]). The SFArequires federal agencies to consult with the NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH, or whenthe NMFS independently learns of a federal activity that may adversely affect EFH. An adverse effect isdefined as “any impact which reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH [and] may include direct (e.g.,contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or reduction in species’ fecundity), sitespecificor habitat wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions”(50 CFR 600.810). As discussed in Section 3.9.2 - Affected Environment, EFH has been designated inthe VACAPES Study Area.This section of the EIS/OEIS includes the Navy's EFH Assessment for the VACAPES Range Complex.An EFH Assessment is a critical review of the proposed project and its potential impacts to EFH. As setforth in 50 CFR 600.920[e][3], EFH Assessments must include (1) a description of the proposed action(see Chapters 1 and 2); (2) an analysis of the effects of the action on EFH and managed species; (3) thefederal agency’s conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and (4) proposed mitigation (seeChapter 5), if applicable. Once NMFS learns of a federal or state activity that may have adverse effectson designated EFH, NMFS is required to develop EFH conservation recommendations for the activity.These recommendations may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverseeffects on EFH (NMFS, 2004a; 2004b).As discussed in Appendix K, the ESA established protection over and conservation of threatened andendangered species. Portions of the VACAPES Study Area are within the historic ranges of the shortnosesturgeon and smalltooth sawfish, which are federally listed as endangered. Therefore, the ESArequirements discussed in Appendix K are applicable to the analysis for the shortnose sturgeon andsmalltooth sawfish. The Navy is consulting with the NMFS in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA.Critical habitat for listed species has not been designated under the ESA in the Study Area.3.9.1.2 Assessment Methods and Data UsedGeneral Approach to AnalysisThe general approach to analysis for fish and EFH is the same as the approach described for marinemammals in Section 3.7.1.2.Study AreaThe Study Area for fish and EFH is described in Section 1.5 and is shown in Figure 1.5-1. The StudyArea is analogous to the “action area,” for purposes of analysis under Section 7 of the ESA.Data SourcesA comprehensive and systematic review of relevant literature and data has been conducted to completethe EFH Assessment, this analysis for fish and EFH, and to ensure that best available information hasbeen used. Of the available scientific literature (both published and unpublished), the following types of3-306 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Essential Fish Habitatdocuments were utilized in the assessment: journals, books, periodicals, bulletins, Department of Defenseoperations reports, EISs, and other technical reports published by government agencies, privatebusinesses, consulting firms, or non-governmental conservation organizations. The scientific literaturewas also consulted during the search for geographic location data on the occurrence of resources withinthe Study Area. The primary sources of information used to describe the affected environment for fishand EFH were in the Navy's marine resources assessments (MRA) for VACAPES (DoN, 2008a) and thelower Chesapeake Bay (DoN, 2007). The MRAs provide compilations of the most recent data andinformation on the occurrence of marine resources in the Study Area. Descriptions of literature and datasearches conducted during preparation of the MRAs are described in detail in those documents.Factors Used to Assess EffectsThis EIS/OEIS analyzes potential effects to fish and EFH in the context of the MSFCMA and SFA(federally managed species and EFH), ESA (species listed under the ESA only), NEPA, and EO 12114.The factors used to assess the significance of effects vary under these Acts. Pursuant to 50 CFR600.910(a), an “adverse effect” on EFH is defined as any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantityof EFH. To help identify Navy activities falling within the adverse effect definition, the Navy hasdetermined that temporary or minimal impacts are not considered to “adversely affect” EFH. 50 CFR600.815(a)(2)(ii) and the EFH Final Rule (67 Fed. Reg. 2354) were used as guidance for thisdetermination, as they highlight activities with impacts that are more than minimal and not temporary innature, as opposed to those activities resulting in inconsequential changes to habitat. Temporary effectsare those that are limited in duration and allow the particular environment to recover without measurableimpact (NMFS, 2002). Minimal effects are those that may result in relatively small changes in theaffected environment and insignificant changes in ecological functions (NMFS, 2002). Whether animpact is minimal depends on a number of factors:The intensity of the impact at the specific site being affected.The spatial extent of the impact relative to the availability of the habitat type affected.The sensitivity/vulnerability of the habitat to the impact.The habitat functions that may be altered by the impact (e.g., shelter from predators).The timing of the impact relative to when the species or life stage needs the habitat.The factors outlined above were also considered in determining the significance of effects under NEPAand EO 12114. For purposes of ESA compliance, effects of the action were analyzed to make the Navy’sdetermination of effect for listed species. The definitions used in making the determination of effectunder Section 7 of the ESA are based on the USFWS and NMFS Endangered Species ConsultationHandbook (USFWS and NMFS, 1998) and are provided in Section 3.7.1.1.3.9.1.3 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsThe Navy used a screening process to identify aspects of the proposed action that could act as stressors tofish and EFH. Navy subject matter experts analyzed the warfare areas and operations included in theproposed action to identify specific activities that could act as stressors. Public and agency scopingcomments, previous environmental analyses, previous agency consultations, laws, regulations, ExecutiveOrders, and resource-specific information were also evaluated. This process was used to focus theinformation presented and analyzed in the affected environment and environmental consequences sectionsof this EIS/OEIS. As summarized in Table 3.9-1, potential stressors to fish and EFH include vesselmovements (disturbance and strikes), aircraft overflights (disturbance), towed Mine Warfare devices(strikes), non-explosive mine shape deployment/recovery (habitat alteration), NEPM (disturbance and3-307 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment, EnvironmentalConsequences and Mitigation Measures3.9 – Fish and Essential Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO FISH AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT 12Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Strikes)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Strikes)Towed Mine Warfare DevicesNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and Operation Training AreasMine Warfare (MIW)Mine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM) Lower Chesapeake Bay Mine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM)W-50A/CW-386, W-72 Mine Neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (at sea)Missile Exercise (MISSILEX) (Air-to-Surface)Gunnery Exercise (GUNEX) (Air-to-Surface)W-386 (Air-K)W-72A (Air-3B)W-72A/B W-386 (Air-K) W-72A W-386 (Air-K), W-72A,W-72A (Air-1A), W-50C GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) Boat W-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) Ship W-386, W-72 12 For detailed information on the numbers and types of ordnance, specific weapons platforms, types of targets used and location of operations see Table 2.2-4and Appendix D.3-308 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment, EnvironmentalConsequences and Mitigation Measures3.9 – Fish and Essential Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO FISH AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT(Continued)Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Strikes)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Strikes)Towed Mine Warfare DevicesNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and Operation Training AreasLaser Targeting W-386 (Air-K) Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure/MaritimeInterception Operations (VBSS/MIO)- VACAPES OPAREA ShipVBSS/MIO- Helo VACAPES OPAREA Air Warfare (AW)Air Combat Maneuver (ACM)W-72A(Air-2A/B, 3A/B)GUNEX (Air-to-Air) W-72A W-386 (Air D, G, H, K) MISSILEX (Air-to-Air)W-72AGUNEX (Surface-to-Air) W-386, W-72 W-386 MISSILEX (Surface-to-Air)(Air D, G, H, K)Air Intercept Control (AIC) W-386, W-72 Detect to Engage (DTE) W-386, W-72 Strike Warfare (STW)HARM Missile ExerciseW-386(Air E,F,I,J) 3-309 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment, EnvironmentalConsequences and Mitigation Measures3.9 – Fish and Essential Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO FISH AND ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT(Continued)Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Strikes)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Strikes)Towed Mine Warfare DevicesNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and Operation Training AreasAmphibious Warfare (AMW)FIREX (Surface-to-Surface) withIntegrated Maritime Portable AcousticScoring and Simulator System (IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)Chaff Exercise- aircraftW-386 (7C/D, 8C/D), W-72 (1C1/2) (PreferredAreas), W-386 (5C/D)(Secondary Areas )W-386, W-386 (Air-K)and W-72 Chaff Exercise- ship W-386 and W-72 W-386, W-386 (Air-K) Flare Exercise- aircraftand W-72Electronic Combat (EC) Operations-W-386 (Air-K)aircraftEC Operations- ship VACAPES OPAREA Test and EvaluationShipboard Electronic Systems EvaluationFacility (SESEF) UtilizationVACAPES OPAREA 3-310 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatstrikes), underwater detonations and HE ordnance, and MEM (ordnance related materials, targets, chaff,self-protection flares, and marine markers). The potential effects of these stressors on fish and EFH areanalyzed in detail in Section 3.9.3.As discussed in Section 3.3 – Water Resources and Section 3.4 – Air Quality, some water and airpollutants would be released into the environment as a result of the proposed action. The analysespresented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 indicate that any increases in water or air pollutant concentrationsresulting from Navy training in the Study Area would be negligible and localized, and impacts to waterand air quality would not be significant. Based on the analyses presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, waterand air quality changes would have no effect or negligible effects on fish and any impacts to EFH wouldbe temporary and/or minimal. Accordingly, the effects of water and air quality changes on fish and EFHare not addressed further in this EIS/OEIS.3.9.2 Affected Environment3.9.2.1 Regional OverviewThe Study Area encompasses marine habitats in the Atlantic Ocean and estuarine habitats in the lowerChesapeake Bay. These habitats support diverse, abundant, and dynamic fish assemblages, many ofwhich are recreationally and commercially important.The OPAREA includes the nearshore area from just off the mouth of the Delaware Bay south to CapeHatteras and extends seaward into waters more than 4,000 m deep. Cape Hatteras is generally consideredto be a transition zone between the warm, tropical waters found to the south and the cool, temperatewaters to the north. Cape Hatteras separates the oceanic provinces of the South-Atlantic Bight from thoseof the Mid-Atlantic Bight. The South-Atlantic Bight encompasses the area from the Florida Straights toCape Hatteras while the Mid-Atlantic Bight extends from Cape Hatteras to the southwestern flank ofGeorges Bank (Brown et al., 1987; Schmitz et al., 1987; Pickard and Emery, 1990; Churchill et al.,1993). A majority of the OPAREA is located in the Mid-Atlantic Bight but the southernmost section ofthe OPAREA is located in the northernmost limit of the South-Atlantic Bight province. Thus bothoceanic provinces influence the physical environment of the OPAREA.Ichthyofauna of the Mid-Atlantic Bight and OPAREA is dynamic and highly variable, due to seasonaland climatic changes, varying life history strategies, hydrographic phenomena, fishing pressure, andnatural cycles of abundance. However, the fauna is diverse because numerous species migrate seasonallythrough this region to spawn. This fauna is composed of both northern (temperate) and southern(subtropical/tropical) fish populations that undergo extensive migrations as they follow temperatureisotherms (Olney and Bilkovic, 1998). While the boundary for faunal change in the Mid-Atlantic Bight isnot distinct, Cape Hatteras has long been recognized as a zoogeographic boundary between the warmtemperateand cold-temperate faunas (Ekman, 1953; Briggs, 1974). At least 250 fish species may occurin the Mid-Atlantic Bight with over 75 percent (190 species) having southern (warm water) affinities(Briggs, 1974). According to more recent information by Able and Fahay (1998), the ichthyofauna of thecentral part of the Mid-Atlantic Bight comprises 336 marine and estuarine species. In addition to the fishfauna, numerous pelagic and bottom-dwelling invertebrate species (e.g., bivalve mollusks, shrimp, crab,and squid) and macroalgae also occur in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (Saila and Pratt, 1973).Grosslein and Azarovitz (1982) noted that all year “significant quantities of fish larvae” could be foundthroughout the Mid-Atlantic Bight. This may be due to the large number of spawning species, extensivedispersal of eggs and larvae throughout the region and into habitats (i.e., inshore or estuarine nurserygrounds) different than the spawning grounds, and spawning periods of long duration (spring and/orsummer), as well as the continuous influx/outflux of northern and southern species. Warm-water species,such as bluefish and weakfish, enter the region as temperatures rise in the spring and summer, while cold3-311 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatwater species (e.g., Atlantic cod, Atlantic herring, and American shad) migrate north. Similarly, as fallapproaches, warm-water species (e.g., summer flounder, butterfish, and black sea bass) may migrateoffshore toward deeper waters and then move southward while coldwater species move south into theMid-Atlantic Bight area.Sharks are a well-represented coastal group in the VACAPES area (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982).They are primarily vagrants from their principal distributional range. Oceanic epipelagic species are alsowell-represented by highly migratory game fish, including Atlantic yellowfin tuna, Atlantic bluefin tuna,Atlantic bigeye tuna, white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, swordfish, dolphin-fish, and wahoo. Suchspecies are often attracted to natural structures such as underwater hills, lumps, and canyons, as well asthe shelf edge, the Gulf Stream, and Sargassum mats. The western front of the Gulf Stream providessignificant spawning habitat for prey and game fish species that migrate into North Carolina coastalwaters at an area known as “The Point” or “Hatteras Corner” (located at approximately 35°31’N by74°45’W, see Figure 3.10-1). The Point supports large concentrations of oceanic game fish and is one ofthe most productive offshore fishing grounds along the U.S. east coast. Large numbers of hammerhead,silky, and mako sharks also occur here, adding to the dynamics and productivity of this area. The yearroundabundance of upper trophic-level game fish implies a plentiful supply of prey (baitfish, squid, andmesopelagic fish) (Minerals Management Service, 1990).The shelf edge habitat north of Cape Hatteras has a jagged broken bottom, over which many groupers,snappers, and porgies abound (Schwartz, 1989). Both shipwrecks and artificial reefs in the opencontinental shelf habitat north of Cape Hatteras can enhance bottom habitat and provide high-qualityfishing grounds for species such as groupers, snappers, porgies, and sea bass.The fish fauna of the Chesapeake Bay is extremely diverse, being represented by more than 295 specieswith 32 species considered year-round residents (i.e., killifish, gobies, silversides, etc.) (Murdy etal., 1997). This diverse ichthyofauna is divided into the five major groups: freshwater, estuarine, marine,anadromous/semi-anadromous, and catadromous. With the exception of freshwater species,representatives from all these groups are expected to occur at least seasonally in the proposed lowerChesapeake Bay Mine Warfare Training Areas. Estuarine fish (e.g., bay anchovy and weakfish) typicallyinhabit the tidal waters with salinities ranging from 0 to 30 practical salinity units (psu), whereas themarine component (e.g., Atlantic menhaden and spot) live and reproduce in the coastal or oceanic waterswith salinities greater than 30 psu. Anadromous forms, represented by clupeids of the genus Alosa (shadand river herring) and the striped bass, migrate from ocean waters to freshwater to spawn. Semianadromousfish move from waters of high salinity to waters of low salinity to spawn. These fish includesuch species as the white perch that move from brackish water to freshwater, and the black drum thatmigrates from ocean waters to the slightly reduced salinities just inside the Chesapeake Bay.Catadromous fish such as the American eel display a migration pattern that allows them to travel to thehigh-salinity ocean waters (i.e., Sargasso Sea in the central North Atlantic) to spawn (CBP, 1993; Murdyet al., 1997; Reshetiloff, 2004).Ichthyofaunal distribution within the Chesapeake Bay is influenced by the diversity of the availablehabitats (e.g., river tributaries, coastal lagoons/estuaries, shallow water shorelines, wetlands, tidal flats,live/hard bottom areas, artificial structures, and open bay) and various physical processes (i.e., winddirection/currents, extreme seasonal temperature changes) (Olney and Boehlert, 1988; Reshetiloff, 2004).In particular, extreme seasonal temperature changes influence fish distribution within the ChesapeakeBay. Fish population diversity peaks from August to September, when rarer tropical species join thewarm-temperate and subtropical summer residents. In early autumn, most marine species begin theircoastal migration to the south or to offshore waters, or both. Large numbers of smaller sciaenids, mullets,Atlantic menhaden, bluefish, and weakfish followed by predators such as sandbar and dusky sharks,migrate south to around Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Other species such as clearnose skate, black sea3-312 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatbass, scup, butterfish, and some summer flounder migrate eastward to the continental shelf edgeinfluenced by slope water and moderate bottom temperatures of 46º to 54ºF to overwinter at depths of90 to 180 m. As autumn progresses, boreal species enter the lower Chesapeake Bay to feed, but move outonto the continental shelf with the arrival of winter and colder temperatures. In mid-winter, many of themobile estuarine resident species (e.g., white perch, striped bass) move into the deeper channels of theriver tributaries where water temperatures become stable, density and diversity of the demersal fishdecline, and some boreal species (e.g., Atlantic herring and spiny dogfish) visit the lower ChesapeakeBay. From February to March, anadromous species enter the Chesapeake Bay and ascend the tributariesto spawn. By late April, some of the sciaenids and summer flounder return to the lower Chesapeake Baywith most of the warm-temperate and subtropical summer residents returning by late May to complete theseasonal cycle (Murdy et al., 1997).While not located within the VACAPES Study Area, other estuaries such as the Delaware Bay,Albemarle Sound, and Pamlico Sound play an important role for many fish species found in the StudyArea. Similar to the Chesapeake Bay, the fish fauna of the these estuaries are extremely diverse andinclude freshwater, estuarine, marine, anadromous/semi-anadromous, and catadromous species.3.9.2.2 Essential Fish HabitatEssential Fish Habitat in VACAPES Range Complex is generally categorized as (DoN, 2005; ASMFC,2007; GMFMC, 2007; MAFMC, 2007a; NEFMC, 2007; SAFMC, 2007a): Benthic Habitat - rocks, gravel, cobbles, pebbles, sand, clay, mud, silt, shell fragments, and hardbottom as well as the water-sediment interface used by many species for spawning/nesting,development, dispersal, and feeding. Structured Habitat - including artificial reefs, shipwrecks, and biogenic habitat created by livingorganisms such as sponges, mussels, algae, and corals. Sargassum Habitat - mats of Sargassum fluitans and S. natans which provide important habitat fornumerous fish, and their larval stages. Gulf Stream Habitat - a diverse and productive pelagic habitat which enhances the dispersal of larvaeof many fish species. Water Column Habitat - extending from the ocean surface to the ocean floor. Depending upon thespecies, the habitat may only include a part of the water column (e.g., surface waters) Estuarine Habitat - tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by landbut have open, partially obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water isat least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the landThe FMCs classify EFH for temperate and subtropical-tropical managed species in terms of five basic lifestages: (1) eggs, (2) larvae, (3) juveniles, (4) adult, and (5) spawning adult. Eggs are those individualsthat have been spawned but not hatched and are completely dependent on the egg’s yolk for nutrition.Larvae are individuals that have hatched and can capture prey, while juveniles are those individuals thatare not sexually mature but possess fully formed organ systems that are similar to adults. Adults aresexually mature individuals that are not necessarily in spawning condition. Finally, spawning adults arethose individuals capable of spawning.Although the individual life stage terms and definitions are the same as those defined by the FMCs,NMFS categorizes the life stages of managed tuna, swordfish, and billfish somewhat differently, resultingin three categories that are based on common habitat usage by all life stages in each group: (1) spawningadults, eggs, and larvae; (2) juveniles and subadult; and (3) adult. Subadults are those individuals justreaching sexual maturity. The category of spawning adult, eggs, and larvae is associated with spawninglocation and the circulation patterns that control the distribution of the eggs and larvae.3-313 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatNMFS uses a different life stage classification system for sharks; the system bases the life stagecombinations on the general habitat shifts that accompany each developmental stage. The three resultingcategories are: (1) neonate and early juvenile (including newborns and pups less than one year old), (2)late juvenile and subadult (age one to adult), and (3) adult (sexually mature sharks). In Amendment 1 tothe Fisheries Management Plan for the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, the first two life stageswere modified as follows: the neonate and early juvenile category was renamed “neonate,” whichprimarily includes neonates and small young-of-the-year sharks; and the late juveniles and subadultscategory was renamed “juveniles,” which includes all immature sharks from young to late juveniles.Detailed descriptions of individual species, their life-histories, distribution, and maps of speciesdesignated EFH-HAPC are contained in the Marine Resource Assessment for the Virginia CapesOperating Area (DoN, 2008) and the Essential Fish Habitat Study for the Southeast Operating Areas:Virginia Capes, Cherry Point, and Charleston/Jacksonville (DoN, 2005). Section 3.6 – MarineCommunities also provides descriptions of benthic habitats and maps artificial habitats (Figure 3.6-1 and3.6-2).At least 94 species (not including corals) with designated EFH for at least one life stage are expected tooccur within the Study Area (Table 3.9-2). These include fish, invertebrate, and macroalgal species.Twenty-five of the species in Table 3.9-2 have designated EFH within the lower Chesapeake Bay StudyArea. These species may be grouped as temperate, subtropical/ tropical, or highly migratory: Temperate Water Fish and Invertebrate Species (T) – Thirty-one temperate finfish and shellfishwith defined EFH/HAPC may occur in the Study Area. They include groundfish (e.g., haddock andsilver hake), flounders, pelagic species (e.g., Atlantic herring and bluefish), and invertebrates (e.g., seascallop, surf clam, squid, and quahog). Subtropical/Tropical Fish and Invertebrate Species (ST/T) – Thirty-six subtropical/tropical specieswith defined EFH/HAPC may occur in the Study Area. They include members of the snapper-groupercomplex, coastal migratory pelagic species complex, red drum, shrimps, golden crab, calico scallops,spiny lobsters, and Sargassum species. Highly Migratory Species (HMS) – Twenty-seven Highly Migratory Species with definedEFH/HAPC may occur in the Study Area. They include billfish, swordfish, tunas, and many sharkspecies.The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) is adopting an ecosystem approach tofisheries management with the development of a Fishery Ecosystem Plan that would amend the Council'sfishery management and habitat plans (SAFMC, 2007b). The transition from single species managementto ecosystem management will help define the complex relationships among humans, harvested fish andprey in the South Atlantic Ecosystem. This effort would improve the understanding of the social andeconomic impacts of management and the ecological consequences of conservation and management. Itwill also likely result in additional EFH areas and likely broaden areas currently designated as EFH.The New England, Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic FMCs, and NMFS manage the commercial andrecreational fisheries in federal waters, as well as the designated EFH fish species and their HAPC thatoccur in the lower Chesapeake Bay. Within Virginia’s waters of Chesapeake Bay, the FisheriesManagement Division of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) administers current andlong-term state policies affecting commercial and recreational saltwater fisheries in Virginia’s tidalwaters. Both the ASMFC and MAFMC participate as management bodies pertinent to Virginia fisheriesand in the developing important species FMPs.3-314 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-2REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES WITH ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABITATAREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN THAT ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THEVACAPES RANGE COMPLEXSpecies Group (1) HAPC (2) Jurisdiction (3)Atlantic albacore (Thunnus alalunga) HM 5Atlantic angel shark (Squatina dumeril) HM 5Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) HM 5Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) T 2Atlantic calico scallop (Agopecten gibbus) ST/T 3Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) T 1Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) (4) T 1Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) T 2Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) T 1Atlantic sharpnose shark (RhizoprionodonHMterraenovae) (4)5Atlantic spadefish (Chaetodipterus faber) ST/T 3Atlantic surf clam (Spisula solidissima) T 2Banded rudderfish (Seriola zonata) ST/T 3,4Bank sea bass (Centropristis ocyurus) ST/T 3Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) HM 5Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus) HM 5Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) HM 5Bignose shark (Carcharhinus altimus) HM 5Blackfin snapper (Lutjanus buccanella) ST/T 3Black sea bass (Centropristis striata) (4) T 2,3Blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) HM 5Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) HM 5Blue shark (Prionace glauca) HM 5Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) HM 5Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) (4) T 2,3,4,6Blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps) ST/T 3,4Brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) ST/T 3,4Brown rock shrimp (Sicyonia brevirostris) ST/T 2Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus)(4) T 2Clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria)(4) T 1Cobia (Rachycentron canadum)(4) ST/T 3,4Corals (>100 species including stony corals,ST/T3octocorals)3-315 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-2REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES WITH ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABITATAREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN THAT ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THEVACAPES RANGE COMPLEX(Continued)Species Group (1) HAPC (2) Jurisdiction (3)Cubera snapper (Lutjanus cyanopterus) ST/T 3,4Deep-sea red crab (Chacon quinquedens) T 1Dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus) ST/T 3,4Dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus) (4) HM 5Finetooth shark (Carcharhinus isodon) HM 5Golden crab (Chaceon fenneri) ST/T 3Goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara) ST/T 3Gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus) ST/T 3,4Greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) ST/T 3,4Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) T 1King mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) (4) ST/T 3,4Lesser amberjack (Seriola fasciata) ST/T 3,4Little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) (4) T 1Longbill spearfish (Tetrapturus pfluegeri) HM 5Longfin inshore squid (Loligo pealeii) T 2Longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus) HM 5Misty grouper (Epinephelus mystacinus) ST/T 3,4Monkfish (goosefish) (Lophius americanus) T 1,2,3,4Mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) ST/T 3Night shark (Carcharhinus signatus) HM 5Northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) T 2Ocean pout (Zoarces americanus) T 1Ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) T 2Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) HM 5Offshore hake (Merluccius albidus) T 1Pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum) ST/T 3,4Pompano dolphin (Coryphaena equiselis) ST/T 3,4Queen triggerfish (Balistes vetula) ST/T 3Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) (4) ST/T 3,4,6Red hake (Urophycis chuss) (4) T 1Red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) ST/T 3Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) ST/T 3,4Ridged slipper lobster (Scyllarides notifer) ST/T 3Rock sea bass (Centropristis philadelphica) ST/T 33-316 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-2REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES WITH ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABITATAREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN THAT ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THEVACAPES RANGE COMPLEX(Continued)Species Group (1) HAPC (2) Jurisdiction (3)Rock shrimp (Sicyonia brevirostris) ST/T 3Rosette skate (Leucoraja garmani) T 1Royal red shrimp (Pleoticus robustus) ST/T 3Sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) HM 5Sailors choice (Haemulon parrai) ST/T 3Sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus) (4) HM 5Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) (4) HM 5Sargassum weed (Sargassum fluitans, S. natans) ST/T 3Scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) (4) HM 5Scamp (Mycteroperca phenax) ST/T 3,4Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) (4) T 2,3Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) HM 5Silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus) ST/T 3,4Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) HM 5Silver hake (whiting) (Merluccius bilinearis) (4) T 1Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) HM 5Snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus) ST/T 3,4Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) (4) ST/T 3,4Speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi) ST/T 3,4Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) (4) T 1,2Spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) ST/T 3,4Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) (4) T 2Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) HM 5Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) (4) HM 5Tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) T and ST/T 2Vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens) ST/T 3,4Wahoo (Acanthocybium solanderi) ST/T 3Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus) ST/T 3,4White grunt (Haemulon plumieri) ST/T 3White hake (Urophycis tenuis) T 1White marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) HM 5White shrimp (Penaeus setiferus) ST/T 3,4Windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) (4) T 1Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) (4) T 1Winter skate (Leuoraja ocellata) (4) T 13-317 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-2REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES WITH ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABITATAREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN THAT ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THEVACAPES RANGE COMPLEX(Continued)Species Group (1) HAPC (2) Jurisdiction (3)Witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) (4) T 1Wreckfish (Polyprion americanus) ST/T 3Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) HM 5Yellowedge grouper (Epinephelus flavolimbatus) ST/T 3,4Yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferrugineus) (4) T 1(1) Group: T=temperate; ST/T=subtropical/tropical; HM= highly migratory.(2) indicates Habitat Areas of Particular Concern have been designated for this species/group in the StudyArea. Note that HAPC for the snapper grouper complex is the same for all species.(3) Jurisdictions: 1=New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC); 2=Mid-Atlantic FisheryManagement Council (MAFMC); 3= SAFMC; 4=Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC);5=NMFS; 6= Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission (ASMFC).(4) EFH has been designated for these species in the Atlantic Ocean and Chesapeake Bay portions of the StudyArea.Sources: ASMFC, 2007; GMFMC, 2007; MAFMC, 2007a; NEFMC, 2007; SAFMC, 2007a.3.9.2.3 Fishery Management Plans and Managed SpeciesFisheries occurring primarily in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (which extends out 200 nmoffshore) off the northeastern U.S. are managed under fishery management plans (FMPs) developed bythe New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery ManagementCouncil (MAFMC); southern species whose range occurs in this region are managed under FMPsdeveloped by SAFMC. MAFMC is the primary body responsible for management of fisheries in thefederal waters encompassed by VACAPES Range Complex.Twenty-two coastal species have FMPs managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission(ASMFC), a consortium of the 18 eastern U.S. coastal states with jurisdiction in State waters (generally 0-3 nm from shore) (ASMFC, 2007). MAFMC and the ASMFC jointly manage 4 coastal species foundwithin VACAPES Range complex: black seabass, bluefish, scup, and summer flounder.The FMCs and NMFS currently have twenty-one FMPs covering managed species and habitats that mayoccur in the area (Table 3.9-3). The individual species, and groups of species, managed through eachFMP are often referred to as “management units (MU)” by fishery agencies. Recreational andcommercial harvest of red drum from the EEZ was prohibited in 1990 and SAFMC is currently in theprocess of transferring management to ASMFC, as 100 percent of the catch is currently taken in statewaters.3-318 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-3FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS AND MANAGED SPECIES IN THE VACAPESRANGE COMPLEXAgency and Fishery Representative Species Expected to Occur In ReferenceManagement PlanVACAPES Range ComplexNational Marine Fisheries ServiceConsolidated Atlantic Highly Billfish MUNMFS, 2006aMigratory Species FMPBlue marlin, longbill spearfish, sailfish, andwhite marlinSwordfish MUSwordfishTuna MUBluefin, bigeye, skipjack tuna, and yellowfintuna and Atlantic albacoreLarge Coastal Shark MUBlacktip, sandbar, scalloped hammerhead, silky,and tiger sharksSmall Coastal Shark MUAtlantic sharpnose and finetooth sharksPelagic Shark MUBlue, oceanic whitetip, and shortfin mako sharksProhibited Species MUAtlantic angel, basking, bigeye thresher, bignose,dusky, longfin mako, night, and sand tiger sharksNew England Fishery Management CouncilAtlantic Herring FMP Atlantic herring NEFMC, 2007Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP Atlantic sea scallop NEFMC, 2007Deep-sea Red Crab FMP Deep-sea red crab NEFMC, 2007Northeast Multispecies FMP Atlantic cod, haddock, ocean pout, offshore NEFMC, 2007hake, red hake, silver hake/whiting, summerflounder, white hake, windowpane flounder,winter flounder, witch flounder, and yellowtailflounderNortheast Skate Complex FMP Clearnose skate, little skate, rosette skate, and NEFMC, 2007winter skateMonkfish FMP Monkfish (goosefish) MAFMC, 2007eMid-Atlantic Fishery Management CouncilAtlantic Mackerel, Squid and Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, and longfin inshore MAFMC, 2007bButterfish FMPsquidBluefish FMP Bluefish MAFMC, 2007cSpiny Dogfish FMP Spiny dogfish MAFMC, 2007dSummer Flounder, Scup and Summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass MAFMC, 2007fBlack Sea Bass FMPSurf Clam and Ocean Quahog Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahogMAFMC, 2007gFMPTilefish FMP Tilefish MAFMC, 2007hSouth Atlantic Fishery Management CouncilCalico Scallop FMP Atlantic calico scallop SAFMC, 2007aCoastal Migratory Pelagics FMP Cobia, king mackerel, and Spanish mackerel SAFMC, 2007aCorals, Coral Reefs and LivebottomHabitat FMPCorals (stony corals and octocorals)SAFMC, 2007a3-319 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-3FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS AND MANAGED SPECIES IN THE VACAPESRANGE COMPLEX (Continued)Agency and Fishery Representative Species Expected to Occur In ReferenceManagement PlanVACAPES Range Complexolphin and Wahoo FMP Dolphin, pompano dolphin, and wahoo SAFMC, 2007cGolden Crab FMP Golden crab SAFMC, 2007aRed Drum FMP Red drum SAFMC, 2007aShrimp FMPBrown rock, brown, pink, royal red, and white SAFMC, 2007ashrimpSnapper/Grouper FMPBlackfin snapper, blueline tilefish, goliath SAFMC, 2007agrouper, gray snapper, greater amberjack, muttonsnapper, red porgy, red snapper, scamp, silksnapper, snowy grouper, speckled hind, tilefish,vermilion snapper, Warsaw grouper, white grunt,wreckfish, and yellowedge grouperSpiny Lobster FMP Spiny lobster and ridged slipper lobster SAFMC, 2007a3.9.2.4 Habitat Areas of Particular ConcernHabitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are discrete subsets of EFH that provide extremelyimportant ecological functions or are especially vulnerable to degradation. Regional FMCs maydesignate a specific habitat area as an HAPC based on one or more of the following reasons: (1)importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat, (2) the extent to which the habitat issensitive to human-induced environmental degradation, (3) whether, and to what extent, developmentactivities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type, and (4) rarity of the habitat type (NMFS, 2002a). TheHAPC designation does not confer additional protection or restrictions upon an area, but can helpprioritize conservation efforts.As summarized in Table 3.9-4 several species have designated HAPC for some or all life stages in theAtlantic Ocean portion of the Study Area. Three of these species have HAPC in the lower ChesapeakeBay Study Area (summer flounder, red drum, sandbar shark). Figure 3.9-1 shows coral, coral reefs, andlive or hard bottom HAPC. Other mapping for other HAPCs are provided in DoN (2008).TABLE 3.9-4HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERNIN THE VACAPES RANGE COMPLEXEFH Species HAPC Description DesignationsAtlantic calico scallop Medium-high profile, offshore, hard bottom habitat, Sargassum; All life stageshermatypic coral habitats/reefs; designated Artificial Reef SpecialManagement Zones (SMZs), The Point (NC), seagrass, mangrove andoyster/shell habitats, inlets, state designated nursery habitats, nearshorehard-bottom habitat.Atlantic cod Northern edge of Georges Bank. JuvenilesSnapper Grouper Medium-high profile, offshore, hard bottom habitat, Sargassum; All life stagesComplexhermatypic coral habitats/reefs; designated Artificial Reef SpecialManagement Zones (SMZs), The Point (NC), seagrass, mangrove andoyster/shell habitats, inlets, state designated nursery habitats, near-3-320 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-4HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERNIN THE VACAPES RANGE COMPLEXEFH Species HAPC Description Designationsshore hard-bottom habitat.Brown, Pink, White All coastal inlets, state designated nursery areas, state identified overwinteringAll life stagesshrimpareas.CobiaSandy shoals of Cape Hatteras from shore to end of the shoal All life stagesshoreward of the Gulf Stream. The Point; pelagic Sargassum.Corals The Point (NC), all corals, gorgonians and octocorals. All coralsDolphinThe Point (NC), the Gulf Stream and associated eddies occurring All life stageswithin the EEZ.Golden tilefish Between the 250 ft and 1,200 ft isobath from the US/Canada boundary Juvenile andto the Virginia/N. Carolina boundary.adultKing mackerel Sandy shoals of Cape Hatteras, shore to the ends of shoals but All life stagesshoreward of the Gulf Stream. The Point, pelagic Sargassum.Red drumInlets, state designated nursery, documented spawn aggregations, All life stagesbarrier islands and their passes, SAV in Virginia, North Carolina,inlets, adjoining channels, sounds, and bars.Royal red shrimp Medium-high profile, offshore, hard bottom habitat where spawning All life stagesnormally occurs; pelagic Sargassum. All hard bottom areas, SAV.Sandbar shark (HMS) Shallows near mouth of lower/middle Delaware & Chesapeake Bays All life stages& outer banks of NC near Palmico Sound adjacent to Hatteras andOcracoke islands, and offshore these islands.SargassumWaters of the Gulf Stream; state waters of NC; south of the state line SAFMC FMPS. fluitansof the Virginia/North Carolina border throughout the entire water protection.S. natanscolumn to edge of EEZ.HAPC underNMFS review.Spanish mackerel Sandy shoals of Cape Hatteras, shore to ends of shoals but shoreward All life stagesof Gulf Stream; The Point (NC); pelagic Sargassum.Speckled hindMedium-high offshore habitat where spawning normally occurs, All life stagespelagic Sargassum, hermatypic coral habitats, Artificial Reef SMZs,The Point. Mangrove, seagrass, oyster/shell habitats. Inlets, statedesignatednursery habitats.Summer flounder All native species of macroalgae, seagrasses, and freshwater and tidal Juveniles andmacrophytes in any size bed, as well as loose aggregations within adultsadult and juvenile summer flounder EFH.Wahoo The Point, NC. All life stages3.9.2.5 Endangered Species Act-Listed Fish SpeciesShortnose SturgeonThe shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) was originally listed as an endangered speciesthroughout its range under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and remained on theendangered species list with the enactment of the ESA in 1973 (NMFS, 1998). Critical habitat has notbeen designated for this species. Historically, the range of the shortnose sturgeon extended along theAtlantic coast from Saint John River, New Brunswick, Canada to Indian River, Florida (Gruchy andParker, 1980). Currently, NMFS recognizes 19 distinct population segments of shortnose sturgeonsinhabiting 25 river systems from Saint John River, New Brunswick, Canada, to Saint Johns River, Florida(NMFS, 1998). Distinct population segments in the vicinity of the VACAPES Study Area include the3-321 March 2009

Central-Corrid orVictor76°W75°W74°W73°W72°W39°NC.ANNAPOLISMilfordWildwood39°NDELAWARESeafordLewesRehoboth BeachAir-AAtlantic CityOPAREACambridgeNAS Patuxent RiverLexington ParkPrincess AnneMARYLANDOcean CityAir-BAir-C38°NAir-DAir-EAir-F38°NVIRGINIANASAWallops IslandW-386Cape Charles3 nm State Limitit12 nm Territorial LimAir-GAir-KAir-HVACAPES OPAREAAir-IAir-JW-387A/B37°NNEWPORTNEWSNS NorfolkNAB Little Creek37°NNORFOLKPORTSMOUTHNAS OceanaVIRGINIABEACHDam NeckW50AW50BW50CW-72A(1)Air-1AW-72A(2)North-Corrid orAir-1BAir-1CAir-1DW-387A: SFC-FL240W-387B: FL240-UNLAir-1EAir-1FNORTH CAROLINAAir-2AW-72BAir-2B36°NNags HeadAir-3ASouth-CorridorAir-2CAir-2DAir-2E36°NAir-2FAir-3BStumpyPointAir-3CAir-3D35°NPiney Island3 nm State Limitit12 nm Territorial LimW-110Air-3E35°NCherry PointOPAREAATLANTICOCEAN34°NSource data: FFWCC (2005), FWC FWRI and SAFMC (2008).34°N76°W75°W74°W73°W72°WPAMDWVVANCSCDENJLegendVACAPES OPAREAAir Grid3 nm Territorial Limit12 nm Territorial LimitWarning Area (W)High Explosive Bombs(No Action and Alternative 1 Only)High Explosive Bombs(Alternative 2 Only)Non-Explosive Practice Munitions0 12.5 25 50 75 100Nautical MilesUnderwater Detonation AreaFIREX with IMPASSExisting Coral, Coral Reefs,Live or Hardbottom EFHExisting Coral, Coral Reefs,Live or Hardbottom HAPCsFigure 3.9-1Live or Hard Bottom EssentialFish Habitat and Habitat Areasof Particular ConcernVACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-322

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatDelaware River (Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York) and Chesapeake Bay/Potomac River(Maryland and Virginia). The Delaware River supports a well-documented population (8,445 individualsin 2004), but the Chesapeake Bay/Potomac River population is not well documented (Murdy et al., 1997;Welsh et al., 2002; Center for Biological Diversity, 2007).Shortnose sturgeons inhabit rivers and estuaries, occasionally moving short distances to the mouths ofestuaries and nearby coastal waters, with populations confined mostly to natal rivers and estuarinehabitats (Dadswell et al., 1984). The species appears to be estuarine anadromous in the southern part ofits range, but in some northern rivers it is “freshwater amphidromous” (adults spawn in freshwater butregularly enter saltwater habitats during their life) (NMFS, 1998). Spawning occurs in freshwater rivers,usually above tidal influence, and eggs are demersal and adhesive (Dadswell et al., 1984). Juveniles mayremain inland of saline waters until they reach a length of 18 in (two to eight years) (Dadswell et al.,1984). In estuarine systems, the shortnose sturgeon occurs in areas with little or no current over a bottomcomposed primarily of mud and sand. Sturgeons prefer freshwater swamps or areas with fast flows andgravel cobble bottoms in the riverine areas (Gilbert, 1992). Adults are found in deep water (10 to 30 m)in winter and in shallow water (2 to 10 m) in summer. Juveniles are nonmigratory, typically inhabitingdeep channels of swiftly flowing river above the salt wedge (Burkhead and Jenkins, 1991). Shortnosesturgeons are not known to participate in coastal migrations (NMFS, 1998). Based on this informationthe shortnose sturgeon is not expected to occur in the Atlantic Ocean portion of the Study Area(OPAREA and R-6606), and its potential occurrence in the Study Area is limited to the lower ChesapeakeBay.The first published account of the shortnose sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay system was an 1876 recordfrom the Potomac River. Based on occurrence of the shortnose sturgeon north and south of theChesapeake Bay, it was likely a resident of the Chesapeake Bay and occupied all four major riverineestuaries of Virginia (Burkhead and Jenkins, 1991). Other historical records support this observation bythe reporting of this species in the upper Chesapeake Bay near the mouth of the Susquehanna River in theearly 1980s and in the lower Chesapeake Bay near the mouths of the James and Rappahannock Rivers inthe late 1970s (NMFS, 1998). Since implementation of the USFWS Atlantic sturgeon reward program,over 50 shortnose sturgeons have been captured in the Maryland waters of the upper Chesapeake Baynorth of Hart-Miller Island by commercial fisherman between 1996 and 2000 (Litwiler, 2001). It hasbeen determined that this species probably traverses the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and may be atransient from the Delaware River where a well-documented population (8,445 individuals in 2004)currently exists (Murdy et al., 1997; Welsh, et al., 2002; Center for Biological Diversity, 2007).According to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, this species has been extirpatedfrom Virginia coastal rivers (VDGIF, 2006). However, one individual was captured at the mouth of theRappahannock River in 1997 through the Atlantic sturgeon reward program for Virginia’s majortributaries (James, York, and Rappahannock) (Welsh et al., 2002). Another individual was capturedduring trawling activities to relocate sea turtles near hopper dredging operations in Thimble ShoalChannel (north of Cape Henry) at the southern mouth of the Chesapeake Bay in 2003. Distribution andmovement of this species in the Chesapeake Bay is poorly understood, in part because it is often confusedwith the Atlantic sturgeon. Population estimates are currently unavailable (NMFS, 2004c; NMFS, 2004d;NMFS, 2006b).Shortnose sturgeon spawning has not been documented in Chesapeake Bay tributaries, but a prespawningmigration by a prespawning female (egg-filled) was documented in the Potomac River in 2006. This wasthe first documented spawning run for a shortnose sturgeon for the entire Chesapeake Bay system, but itis unknown if the fish actually spawned (Blankenship, 2006).3-323 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatAvailable data suggest that the shortnose sturgeon rarely occurs in the lower Chesapeake Bay portion ofthe Study Area. Individuals generally remain within their natal river or estuary, only occasionally movingto marine environments (Dadswell et al., 1984). The current Chesapeake Bay system population appearsto be centered in the upper Chesapeake Bay (Welsh et al., 2002). Shortnose sturgeon spawn in freshwater(NMFS, 1998). Consequently, the lower Chesapeake Bay portion of the Study Area does not providesuitable spawning or nursery habitat.Smalltooth SawfishThe distinct population segment of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) in the United States was listedas an endangered species in 2003. Critical habitat has not yet been designated for the smalltooth sawfish.However, NMFS anticipates proposing critical habitat for this species by March 2009 and designatingcritical habitat by September 2009 (Norton, 2008). Proposed critical habitat for the smalltooth sawfish isexpected to be limited to portions of Florida. It is believed the current population is less than 5 percent ofits historical size (Simpfendorfer and Wiley, 2006). Prior to around 1960, smalltooth sawfish occurredcommonly in shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico and eastern seaboard up to North Carolina, and morerarely as far north as New York. Currently its distribution is limited to peninsular Florida and, within thatarea, smalltooth sawfish can only be found with any regularity off the extreme southern portion of thestate. The current distribution is centered in the Everglades National Park, including Florida Bay(NMFS, 2003). The smalltooth sawfish typically inhabits nearshore, shallow subtropical-tropicalestuarine and marine waters, but may also be found utilizing freshwater habitats in large rivers(Simpfendorfer, 2002; Schultz, 2004).Records of the smalltooth sawfish from Maryland and Virginia are from the late 1800s and early 1900s.This species was rarely taken in the lower Chesapeake Bay and has not been reported in Maryland orVirginia since 1928 (Burgess and Curtis, 2003; NMFS, 2006c). There have been multiple reports of thesmalltooth sawfish in North Carolina waters from the late 1800s and early 1900s. This species wasreported from Core Sound, Bogue Sound, New River, and Cape Lookout. Since 1915, there have beenthree published records of captures in North Carolina: 1937, 1963, and the latest in 1999 (Burgess andCurtis, 2003; NMFS, 2006c). The smalltooth sawfish is not expected to occur in the VACAPES StudyArea because its current distribution is limited to peninsular Florida, no recent records exist for the StudyArea, and it rarely occurs offshore.Candidate Species“Candidate species” refer to (1) species that are the subject of a petition to list under the ESA and forwhich NMFS determined that listing may be warranted, and (2) species that are not the subject of apetition but for which NMFS has announced the initiation of a status review in the Federal Register. Inother words, any species undergoing a status review announced by the NMFS in a Federal Register noticewill be considered a candidate species. Initiation of a status review does not mean that an ESA listing isimminent. Even after a status review has been conducted, it is possible the available information will beinsufficient to make a determination on the status of the species or that the information will indicate thatan ESA listing is not warranted. Candidate species do not carry any procedural or substantive protectionsunder the ESA, and Section 7 consultation requirements do not apply. One candidate species, the Atlanticsturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), occurs in the VACAPES Study Area.The Atlantic sturgeon is found along the Atlantic coast from Labrador, Canada, to the St. Johns River,Florida. It is anadromous (migrates from the ocean into coastal estuaries and rivers to spawn), livesapproximately 60 years, and reaches sexual maturity between years 5 and 34 years (NMFS, 2007a).Atlantic sturgeon feed on benthic invertebrates, mussels, worms, and shrimp. Atlantic sturgeon swimthrough the Chesapeake Bay in April and May on their way to spawn in tributaries. Atlantic sturgeonmight have historically spawned in most tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay, but today limited spawning3-324 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatoccurs in the James and York Rivers (ASMFC, 2007). First identified as a species of concern in 1988, itsstatus was reviewed in 1998 and found not to warrant listing at that time although a country-widemoratorium on fishing was ordered by the federal government in 1998. Reasons for its decline are fishing(harvesting for flesh and eggs [caviar]), estuarine and freshwater habitat degradation, and locks and dams.The Atlantic sturgeon is managed under the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission FisheryManagement Plan, and rebuilding of stock is estimated to take 20 to 40 years (ASMFC, 2007). A secondstatus review was initiated in 2005 to consider ESA listing (NMFS, 2007a).Species of Concern“Species of concern” are those species about which NMFS has concern regarding status and threats, butfor which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under ESA. Species ofconcern do not carry any procedural or substantive protections under the ESA, and Section 7 consultationrequirements do not apply. Species of concern status serves to promote conservation and research effortsfor these species. The following species of concern potentially occur in the VACAPES Study Area:alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis),dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus), night shark (Carcharinus signatus), opossum pipefish (Microphisbrachyurus lineatus), sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus), speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi),thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata), Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus), and Atlantic white marlin(Tetrapturus albidus) (NMFS, 2007c).3.9.3 Environmental Consequences3.9.3.1 No Action AlternativeVessel MovementsEffects on Essential Fish HabitatVessel movements would have no effect on benthic or artificial habitats because Navy vessels areoperated in relatively deep waters and have navigational capabilities to avoid contact with these habitats.Vessel movements would result in short-term, localized disturbances to water column and Sargassumhabitats. Impacts to Sargassum habitats would be avoided and minimized by mitigation measures(Chapter 5). Impacts to EFH would be temporary and minimal. Vessel movements would not reduce thequality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area.Disturbance to FishStudies documenting behavioral responses of fish to vessels show that fish may exhibit avoidanceresponses to engine sound, sonar, depth finders, and fish finders (Jorgensen et al., 2004; AcousticEcology, 2007). Avoidance reactions are quite variable depending on the type of fish, its life historystage, behavior, time of day, and, the sound propagation characteristics of the water (Schwarz, 1985).Misund (1997) found that fish ahead of a ship, that showed avoidance reactions, did so at ranges of 160 to490 ft. When the vessel passed over them, some species of fish responded with sudden escape responsesthat included lateral avoidance and/or downward compression of the school.The low frequency sounds of large vessels or accelerating small vessels caused avoidance responsesamong herring (Chapman and Hawkins, 1973). Avoidance ended within 10 seconds after the vesseldeparted. Twenty five percent of the fish groups habituated to the sound of the large vessel and 75percent of the responsive fish groups habituated to the sound of small boats.Vessel movements under the No Action Alternative would expose fish to general disturbance, whichcould result in short-term behavioral and/or physiological responses (e.g., swimming away and increasedheart rate). Such responses would not be expected to compromise the general health or condition ofindividual fish.3-325 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatStrikes with FishThe probability of strikes between vessels and adult or juvenile fish, which could result in injury ormortality, would be extremely low because these life stages are highly mobile and Navy vessel density inthe Study Area is low. Ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) in the upper portions of the water columncould be displaced, injured, or killed by vessel and propeller movements. However, no measurableeffects on fish recruitment would occur because the number of eggs and larvae exposed to vesselmovements would be low relative to total ichthyoplankton biomass. Navy mitigation measures (seeChapter 5), which include avoidance of large Sargassum mats where some fish species tend toconcentrate, further reduce the probability of injury or mortality. In accordance with NEPA, vesselmovements in territorial waters under the No Action Alternative would have no significant impact on fishpopulations or habitat. Furthermore, vessel movements in non-territorial waters would not causesignificant harm to fish populations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Aircraft OverflightsEffects on Essential Fish HabitatAs discussed in Section 3.7.3.3, aircraft overflights in the Study Area would produce intermittent airbornenoise and some of this sound energy would be transmitted into the water. Based on the analysis presentedin Section 3.7.3.3, aircraft overflights could increase ambient sound levels in the water column andpossibly in shallow water benthic habitats. However, most fixed-wing overflights occur at 5,000 to30,000 ft and low-altitude flights are infrequent. Furthermore, any increased sound levels in the watercolumn would be short-term (a few seconds as the aircraft passes) and localized (a narrow cone under theaircraft). The downdraft from low altitude helicopter overflights could also result in short-term, localizeddisturbance to the water surface. Impacts from aircraft overflights to EFH would be temporary andminimal. Aircraft overflights would not reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area.Effects on FishSome species of fish could respond to noise associated with low-altitude aircraft overflights or to thesurface disturbance created by downdrafts from helicopters. However, studies indicate that hearingspecializations in marine fish are quite rare and that most marine fish are considered hearing generalists(Popper, 2008; Popper, 2003; Amoser and Ladich, 2005). Generalists are limited to detection of theparticle motion component of low frequency sounds at relatively high sound intensities (Amoser andLadich, 2005). As such, it is possible that many species of fish would not hear or respond to noiseassociated with most aircraft overflights. If fish were to respond to aircraft overflights, only short-termbehavioral and/or physiological reactions (e.g., swimming away and increased heart rate) would beexpected. Such responses would not compromise the general health or condition of individual fish. Inaccordance with NEPA, aircraft overflights over territorial waters under the No Action Alternative wouldhave no significant impact on fish populations or habitat. Furthermore, aircraft overflights over nonterritorialwaters would not cause significant harm to fish populations or habitat in accordance withEO 12114.Towed Mine Warfare DevicesEffects on Essential Fish HabitatAs described in Chapter 2 and Appendix D, Mine Warfare Exercises conducted in the Study Area includethe use of various underwater mine detection and countermeasures systems that are towed through thewater by helicopters flying approximately 75 ft above the water at low airspeeds. This training wouldoccur in the lower Chesapeake Bay and portions of the OPAREA that are within 45 nm of NS Norfolk(see Figures 2.2-1 through 2.2-4).3-326 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatThe use of towed devices would result in short-term and localized disturbances to the water column, butbenthic habitats would not be affected because the devices are not towed on the bottom. Training withthese devices is conducted in areas where little or no Sargassum habitat is expected to occur. In addition,Navy mitigation measures specify that the crew monitor for Sargassum rafts prior to and during theexercise. Visible Sargassum would be avoided to prevent fouling of the towed devices. Air crewsoperating the helicopters are expected to be able to see and avoid most Sargassum mats based on therelatively low flight altitude and low airspeeds. Therefore, any disturbance to Sargassum would belimited to very small patches that are not visible to the air crew. Impacts to EFH would be temporary andminimal. Use of towed Mine Warfare devices would not reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in theStudy Area.Effects on FishThe probability of strikes between towed Mine Warfare devices and adult or juvenile fish, which couldresult in injury or mortality, would be extremely low because these life stages are highly mobile.Ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) in the upper portions of the water column could be displaced,injured, or killed by towed Mine Warfare devices. However, no measurable effects on fish recruitmentwould occur because the number of eggs and larvae exposed to towed devices would be low relative tototal ichthyoplankton biomass. In accordance with NEPA, the use of towed Mine Warfare devices interritorial waters under the No Action Alternative would have no significant impact on fish populations orhabitat. Furthermore, the use of towed Mine Warfare devices in non-territorial waters would not causesignificant harm to fish populations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Mine Warfare Training Area Establishment (Non-explosive Mine Shape Deployment/Recovery)The No Action Alternative does not include establishment of Mine Warfare Training Areas where nonexplosivemine shapes would be deployed.Non-Explosive Practice MunitionsEffects on Essential Fish HabitatCurrent Navy operations in the Study Area include firing a variety of weapons and employ a variety ofNEPM, including bombs, missiles, naval gun shells, cannon shells, and small caliber ammunition. NEPMmay be used in several training areas (see Table 2.2-6 for a summary of ordnance use by training area),but is not authorized in W-110, W-387, 0r the lower Chesapeake Bay.Disturbances to water column habitats from NEPM strikes would be short-term and localized. Navymitigation measures require avoidance of Sargassum; therefore impacts to these habitats would beminimal. The potential for NEPM strikes to adversely affect benthic communities depends on severalfactors, including the size and speed of the ordnance, water depth, the number of rounds delivered, thefrequency of training, and the presence/absence of sensitive benthic communities. As described inSection 3.6.2, a majority of the OPAREA consists of soft bottom habitats. While a broad area of softbottom benthic habitat could be exposed to direct ordnance strikes, the training exercises are intermittentand widely dispersed, which decreases the likelihood that a given area would be subjected to repeatedexposure. NEPM velocity would rapidly decrease upon contact with the water and as it travels throughthe water column. Consequently, NEPM strikes would cause little or no physical damage to soft bottombenthic habitat and any damage would be localized.Live hard bottom or artificial habitats would be vulnerable to damage from NEPM strikes. This isparticularly true for areas that support coral because coral is fragile and could be easily broken by contactwith larger objects such as non-explosive practice bombs. Repopulation and recovery of damaged hard3-327 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatbottom habitats would be relatively slow (e.g., years to a decade or more) compared to soft bottom areas(e.g., less than one year) (NRC, 2002).Non-explosive practice bombs are the largest types of NEPM used in the OPAREA (Table 3.9-5). Basedon their weight, non-explosive practice bombs could cause damage if they struck sensitive hard bottomhabitat. A total of 295 non-explosive practice bombs would be dropped per year under the No ActionAlternative in W-72A/B. Assuming an even distribution, the relative concentration of non-explosivepractice bombs would be 2.1 per 100 nm 2 /year. Actual concentrations would vary based on specifictraining scenarios, but would nonetheless be extremely low. The maximum area of benthic habitataffected by non-explosive practice bomb strikes would be approximately 3,306 ft 2 per year or 33,060 ft 2over a ten-year period for the No Action Alternative, assuming that the area affected by a single nonexplosivepractice bomb would be two times its footprint (Table 3.9-6).TABLE 3.9-5SIZE OF NON-EXPLOSIVE PRACTICEBOMBS USED IN THE VACAPES OPAREANEPM TypeWeight(pounds)Length(inches)Diameter(inches)BDU-45 500 66 11 5.0MK-76 25 25 4 0.7MK-20 Rockeye Cluster (each1.326.52dispenses 247 bomblets)(per bomblet) (per bomblet) (per bomblet)MK-82 500 90 11 6.9MK-83 (1) 1,000 119 14 11.6MK-84 2,000 129 18 16.1(1) Alternative 2 only.(2) Length x diameter.Footprint(ft 2 ) (2)22.3(total per bomb)TABLE 3.9-6ESTIMATES OF MARINE BENTHIC HABITAT THAT WOULD BE AFFECTEDBY NON-EXPLOSIVE PRACTICE BOMBS IN THE VACAPES OPAREANEPM TypeNo Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2#/Yr Area Affected/Yr #/Yr Area Affected/Yr #/Yr Area Affected/Yr(ft 2 ) (1) (ft 2 ) (1) (ft 2 ) (1)BDU-45 45 450 50 500 50 500MK-76 185 259 204 286 204 286MK-20 51 2,275 56 2,498 68 3,033MK-82 7 97 8 110 158 2,180MK-83 0 0 0 0 50 1,160MK-84 7 225 7 225 7 225Total = 295 3,306 325 3,619 537 7,384(1) Assumed that the area of marine benthic habitat affected per year = footprint x 2 x #/yr.As shown in Figure 3.6-1, few artificial reefs are located in W-72-A/B and shipwrecks are widelydispersed. The probability of non-explosive practice bombs striking artificial habitats would be lowbecause these resources occupy a relatively small area.Based on the distribution of hard bottom EFH and HAPC (Figure 3.9-1), it is possible that a smallpercentage of non-explosive practice bombs would strike in these areas. The potential for strikes toadversely affect benthic communities in these areas would depend on the substrate and community typesfound at the point of physical impact. Given the dispersed nature of the training activities, often patchydistribution of community types, and relatively limited bottom mapping data, it is not possible to3-328 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitataccurately determine the number of non-explosive practice bombs that would strike soft bottom habitatsversus more sensitive areas such as live hard bottom. Nonetheless, the total area of benthic habitataffected by non-explosive practice bomb strikes would be small (about 3,306 ft 2 per year) and only apercentage of the total area affected (far less than 3,306 ft 2 per year) would be sensitive benthic habitatsuch as live hard bottom.Non-explosive practice bomb strikes could result in long-term, minor effects to benthic EFH, but theeffects would be localized and no long-term changes to community structure or function would beexpected. Impacts to benthic EFH would be minimal based on the relatively small area affected by nonexplosivepractice bombs. Given the small area affected, NEPM use under the No Action Alternativewould not reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area.Effects on FishNEPM and associated shrapnel have the potential to directly strike fish as it travels through the watercolumn. NEPM could also generate physical shock entering the water, but would not explode. Shockwaves could cause behavioral reactions or physical injury. Fish at the surface would be most susceptibleto injury from strikes because NEPM velocity would rapidly decrease upon contact with the water and asit travels through the water column. Navy mitigation measures, which include avoidance of largeSargassum mats where some fish tend to concentrate, further reduce the probability of NEPM-relatedinjury or mortality. As discussed in Section 3.7.3 and 3.8.3, statistical modeling conducted for the StudyArea indicates that the probability of NEPM striking marine mammals and sea turtles is extremely low.Statistical modeling could not be conducted to estimate the probability of NEPM/fish strikes because fishdensity data are not available. A possibility exists that a small number of fish at or near the surface maybe directly impacted if they are in the target area and near the point of physical impact at the time ofNEPM delivery, but population-level effects would not occur.Weapons firing could have acoustic effects from: 1) sound generated by firing the gun (muzzle blast), 2)vibration from the blast propagating through the ship’s hull, and 3) sonic-booms generated by the shellflying through the air.Firing a deck gun produces a shock wave in air that propagates away from the muzzle in all directions,including toward the air/water surface. Direct measurements of shock wave pressures transferred throughthe air/water interface from the muzzle blast of a 5-inch gun are well below levels known to be harmful atshallow depths (DoN, 2000a; Yagla and Stiegler, 2003). Sound produced during gunfire may disturb fishin the vicinity of the ship. Because the sound is brief, no extended disruption of fish behavior is expected.Gun fire sends energy through the ship structure, into the water, and away from the ship. This effect wasalso investigated in conjunction with the measurement of 5-inch gun blasts described above (DoN, 2000a;Yagla and Stiegler, 2003). The energy transmitted through the ship to the water for a typical round wasfound to be about 6 percent of that from the air blast impinging on the water. Therefore, soundtransmitted from the gun, through the hull into the water should have negligible impact on marine life.The sound generated by a shell in its flight at supersonic speeds above the water is transmitted into thewater in much the same way as a muzzle blast (Pater, 1981). The region of underwater sound influencefrom a single traveling shell is relatively small, diminishes quickly as the shell gains altitude, and is ofshort duration. The penetration of sound through the air\water interface is relatively limited (Miller,1991; Yagla and Stiegler, 2003). Studies reviewed in DoN (2007) indicate only a small number ofsubmerged species would be exposed to the pressure waves from sonic booms from 5-inch shells firedduring routine training exercises. The potential exists for energy from multiple sonic booms toaccumulate over time from multiple, possibly rapid firings of a gun. However, because the area directly3-329 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatbelow the shells’ path, where the conditions are correct for energy to enter the ocean is small, it is highlyunlikely that the energy from more than two or three shells would be additive.In accordance with NEPA, NEPM use in territorial waters under the No Action Alternative would haveno significant impact on fish populations or habitat. Furthermore, NEPM use in non-territorial waterswould not cause significant harm to fish populations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Underwater Detonations and High Explosive OrdnanceOverviewExplosions that occur in the OPAREA are associated with training exercises that use HE ordnance,including bombs (BOMBEX), missiles (MISSILEX), and naval gun shells (FIREX with IMPASS, 5-inchHE rounds), as well as underwater detonations associated with Mine Neutralization training (MINEX).Underwater detonation and HE ordnance use is limited to specific training areas (see Table 2.2-7 for asummary of explosions by training area) and does not occur in the lower Chesapeake Bay or in statewaters of the Atlantic Ocean (0 to 3 nm from shore). Potential effects to fish and EFH from underwaterexplosions include: habitat disturbance; disturbance, injury, or death from the shock (pressure) wave;acoustic effects; and indirect effects including those on prey species and other components of the foodweb.Habitat Disturbance and Essential Fish HabitatThe underwater detonation of explosives can result in physical alteration of fish habitats (Wright andHopky, 1998). As discussed above in Section 3.9.2, EFH has been designated for various federallymanaged species in training areas where underwater detonations and HE ordnance use occurs. Allunderwater detonations and HE ordnance use would result in disturbance to water column habitats, someof which could be designated as EFH for spawning adults. However, water column disturbances wouldbe short-term (a few seconds) and localized, and associated effects to EFH would be temporary andminimal.A primary concern is the potential for explosions to affect live hard bottom, coral reefs, artificial reefs,and shipwrecks, because these resources provide shelter and habitat for a wide variety of marine life anddense aggregations of fish (Cahoon et al., 1990; Thompson et al., 1999). As discussed in Section 3.6.2.2,hard bottom communities, corals, and coral reefs are limited in the Study Area except those hard bottomcommunities that exist on man-made structures such as shipwrecks and artificial reefs, as well as oysterreefs in the lower Chesapeake Bay (Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2). Mine Neutralization exercises conductedunder the No Action Alternative in W-50C would include underwater detonations set on or near the seafloor, as well as in the water column. The Navy does not set underwater explosive charges associatedwith Mine Neutralization exercises within 1,000 ft of known live/hard bottom, artificial reefs, andshipwrecks (see Section 5.7 for detailed description of Navy mitigation measures). In addition, hardbottom habitat is not known to occur in W-50. Therefore, only unconsolidated, soft bottom and watercolumn habitats would be exposed to impacts from underwater detonations associated with MineNeutralization exercises.Cratering of soft bottom habitats would result from Mine Neutralization charges set on or near thebottom. For a specific size of explosive charge, crater depths and widths would vary depending on depthof the charge and sediment type, but crater dimensions generally decrease as bottom depth increases. A20-lb NEW charge detonated on the bottom can create depressions in the substrate up to 4 to 5 feet indiameter (12.6 to 19.6 ft 2 ) and 1 foot deep (DoN, 2000b). Assuming a worst –case scenario where all 1220-lb charges were detonated directly on the bottom, up to 151 to 235 ft 2 of soft bottom benthic habitatcould be disturbed by underwater detonations per year under the No Action Alternative. Crater effectsare usually temporary in sand and mud bottoms. Short-term (a few hours) increases in turbidity,3-330 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatresuspension of bottom sediments, and localized mortality of benthic organisms and plankton would beexpected. There have been no studies of sediment deposition rates in the area of the proposed action, butthe Minerals Management Service (2002) indicates that sandy sediments are quickly redeposited within1,312 feet of oil-well blowouts, and finer sediments are widely dispersed and redeposited over a period of30 days or longer within 3,000 feet. Repopulation of displaced sediments should be relatively rapid (lessthan one year) compared to hard bottom areas (years to decades or more) (NRC, 2002). The effects toEFH from Mine Neutralization underwater detonations would be considered minimal based on therelatively small area affected. The effects would also be considered temporary based on the relativelyrapid (less than one year) recovery of soft bottom habitats and associated benthic communities.Explosions associated with BOMBEX, MISSILEX, and FIREX with IMPASS occur at or near the water'ssurface in areas where depths range from 20 m to over 2,900 m. Of the ordnance types used during theseexercises, the MK-84 HE bomb has the highest net explosive weight (NEW) (944.7 lbs). Using theequation presented in Swisdak (1978), the maximum radius of the gas bubble produced by a MK-84 HEbomb explosion would be about 11.9 m (39 ft). The gas bubble would not extend to the bottom based onthe minimum water depth (20 m) and a detonation depth of 1 m below the surface. Likewise, the gasbubbles produced by other ordnance types used in BOMBEX, MISSILEX, and GUNEX would notextend to the bottom because they have smaller NEWs. Therefore, explosions during BOMBEX,MISSILEX, and GUNEX are not expected to result in disturbance to benthic or artificial habitats becausedetonations would occur near the surface in deep waters. Effects of explosions on Sargassum habitatswould be minimal because Navy mitigation measures specify that HE ordnance is not targeted to impactnear observed Sargassum mats.In summary, underwater detonations and HE ordnance use under the No Action Alternative would resultin short-term and localized disturbances to water column habitats. Underwater detonations associatedwith Mine Neutralization training would disturb soft bottom benthic habitats, but the effects would beminimal and temporary. Underwater detonations and HE ordnance use are not expected to have adverseeffects on live hard bottom, corals, coral reefs EFH or HAPCs, or artificial habitats. Navy mitigationmeasures further reduce the potential for these resources and Sargassum habitats to be affected byexplosions. Underwater detonations and HE ordnance use would not result in a measurable decrease inthe quantity or quality of EFH in the Study Area. In accordance with NEPA, underwater detonations andHE ordnance use in territorial waters under the No Action Alternative would not result in significantimpacts to fish habitat. In accordance with EO 12114, underwater detonations and HE ordnance use innon-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to fish habitat.Pressure Effects and Acoustic EffectsAn underwater explosion generates a shock wave that produces a sudden, intense change in local pressureas it passes through the water (DoN, 1998, 2001). Pressure waves extend to a greater distance than otherforms of energy produced by the explosion (i.e., heat and light) and are therefore the most likely source ofnegative effects to marine life from underwater explosions (Craig, 2001; SIO, 2005; DoN, 2006).The shock wave from an underwater explosion is lethal to fish at close range, causing massive organ andtissue damage and internal bleeding (Keevin and Hempen, 1997). At greater distance from the detonationpoint, the extent of mortality or injury depends on a number of factors including fish size, body shape,orientation, and species (Wright, 1982; Keevin and Hempen, 1997). At the same distance from thesource, larger fish are generally less susceptible to death or injury, elongated forms that are round incross-section are less at risk than deep-bodied forms, and fish oriented sideways to the blast suffer thegreatest impact (Yelverton et al., 1975; Wiley et al., 1981; O’Keefe and Young, 1984a,b; Edds-Waltonand Finneran, 2006). Species with gas-filled organs have higher mortality than those without them(Goertner et al., 1994; CSA, 2004).3-331 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTwo aspects of the shock wave appear most responsible for injury and death to fish: the received peakpressure and the time required for the pressure to rise and decay (Dzwilewski and Fenton, 2003). Higherpeak pressure and abrupt rise and decay times are more likely to cause acute pathological effects (Wrightand Hopky, 1998). Rapidly oscillating pressure waves might rupture the kidney, liver, spleen, and sinusand cause venous hemorrhaging (Keevin and Hempen, 1997). They can also generate bubbles in bloodand other tissues, possibly causing embolism damage (Ketten, 1998). Oscillating pressure waves mightalso burst gas-containing organs. The swim bladder, the gas-filled organ used by many pelagic fish tocontrol buoyancy, is the primary site of damage from explosives (Yelverton et al., 1975; Wright, 1982).Gas-filled fish swim bladders resonate at different frequencies than surrounding tissue and can be torn byrapid oscillation between high- and low-pressure waves. Swim bladders are a characteristic of bonyfishes and are not present in sharks and rays. However, hemorrhaging of the liver in sharks exposed tothe shock waves from explosives could have deleterious effects on the buoyancy function provided by thelivers of these species (Edds-Walton and Finneran, 2006). Delayed lethality could result from theaccumulation of sub-lethal injuries (DoN, 2001).Studies that have documented fish killed during planned underwater explosions indicate that most fishthat die do so within one to four hours, and almost all die within a day (Hubbs and Rechnizer, 1952;Yelverton et al., 1975). Fitch and Young (1948) found that the type of fish killed changed when blastingwas repeated at the same marine location within 24 hours of previous blasting. They observed that mostfish killed on the second day were scavengers, presumably attracted by the victims of the previous day’sblasts. However, fishes collected during these types of studies have mostly been recovered floating on thewaters surface. Gitschlag et al. (2000) collected both floating fish and those that were sinking or lying onthe bottom after explosive removal of nine oil platforms in the northern Gulf of Mexico. They found that3 to 87 percent (46% average) of the specimens killed during a blast might float to the surface. Otherimpediments to accurately characterizing the magnitude of fish mortality included currents and winds thattransported floating fishes out of the sampling area and predation by seabirds or other fishes.There have been few studies of the impact of underwater explosions on early life stages of fishes (eggs,larvae, juveniles). Fitch and Young (1948) reported the demise of larval anchovies exposed tounderwater blasts off California, and Nix and Chapman (1985) found that anchovy and smelt larvae diedfollowing the detonation of buried charges. Similar to adult fishes, the presence of a swim bladdercontributes to shock wave-induced internal damage in larval and juvenile fishes (Settle et al., 2002).Shock wave trauma to internal organs of larval pinfish and spot from shock waves was documented byGovoni et al. (2003). These were laboratory studies, however, and have not been verified in the field.Fish not killed or driven from a location by an explosion might change their behavior, feeding pattern, ordistribution. Changes in behavior of fish have been observed as a result of sound produced by explosives,with effect intensified in areas of hard substrate (Wright, 1982). Fish which ascend too quickly, a typicalresponse to fear or to avoid negative stimuli, might experience an increase in the volume of gas-filledorgans due to the reduction in ambient pressure. The resulting inflation might render the fish unable toimmediately return to its normal habitat depth because the expanded organs make the buoyancy of thefish too great to overcome by swimming downward. Stunning from pressure waves could alsotemporarily immobilize fish, making them more susceptible to predation.The variety of environmental parameters and biological features that can modify the impact of underwaterexplosions complicates the effort to predict lethal effect ranges in the field (Wright, 1982; Keevin andHempen, 1997). Predictive models have, however, been developed over the past three decades (Wiley etal., 1981; Goertner, 1982; Young, 1991). These are based on measurements of the pressure produced byunderwater explosions at increasing distance from the detonation point (O’Keefe and Young, 1984a,b;Wright and Hopky, 1998; Dzwilewski and Fenton, 2003). Different types of explosive materials arenormalized in effect range models by establishing an equivalent weight of TNT known as NEW.3-332 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatYoung (1991) provides equations that allow estimation of the potential effect on fish possessing swimbladders using a damage prediction method developed by Goertner (1982). Young’s parameters includethe size of the fish and its location relative to the explosive source, but are independent of environmentalconditions (e.g., depth of fish and explosive shot frequency). An example of such model predictions isshown in Table 3.9-7 which lists estimated explosive-effects ranges using Young’s (1991) method for fishpossessing swim bladders exposed to explosions that would occur under the No Action Alternative andAlternatives 1 and 2. The 10 percent mortality range is the distance beyond which 90 percent of the fishpresent would be expected to survive. It is difficult to predict the range of more subtle effects causinginjury but not mortality (CSA, 2004).TABLE 3.9-7ESTIMATED EXPLOSIVE EFFECTS RANGES FOR FISH WITH SWIM BLADDERS10% Mortality Range (ft)Training Operation and Type of OrdnanceNEW(lb)Depth ofExplosion (ft)Mine NeutralizationMK-103 Charge (1) 0.002 10 40 28 18AMNS Charge (2) 3.24 20 366 255 16420-lb NEW UNDET Charge 20 30 666 464 299Missile ExerciseHellfire 8 3.3 317 221 142Maverick 100 3.3 643 449 288Firing Exercise with IMPASSHE Naval Gun Shell, 5-inch 8 1 244 170 109Bombing ExerciseMK-20 (3) 109.7 3.3 660 460 296MK-82 (3) 192.2 3.3 772 539 346MK-83 415.8 3.3 959 668 430MK-84 (3) 945 3.3 1,206 841 541(1) Alternative 2 only.(2) Alternatives 1 and 2 only.(3) No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 only.1-ozFish1-lbFish30-lbFishFish located outside the lethal effects range of an underwater explosion could also experience adverseeffects from the blast's acoustical signature. Sound is the only form of energy that propagates wellunderwater and is used by many aquatic animals for imaging, navigations, and communication. Fish haveevolved two main sensory organs for detecting sound: the inner ear, located in the skull, and the lateralline system along the flanks and on the head (Ladich and Popper, 2004). The perception of soundpressure is restricted to fish species with gas-filled swim bladders. Due to the higher compressibility ofgas than water, the swim bladder responds effectively to sound pressure fluctuations. In some species offish, a series of modified vertebra connect the inner ear to the swim bladder acting as a transducer thatconverts sound pressure waves into particle motion which stimulates the otoliths. Species with no swimbladder (for example, mackerel, tuna, sharks) or a much-reduced one (many benthic species, includingflatfish) tend to have relatively low auditory sensitivity.Broadly, fish can be categorized as either hearing specialists or hearing generalists. Fish in the hearingspecialist category have a broad frequency range with a low auditory threshold due to a mechanicalconnection between an air filled cavity, such as a swim bladder, and the inner ear. Specialists detect both3-333 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatthe particle motion and pressure components of sound and can hear at levels above 1 kHz. Generalists arelimited to detection of the particle motion component of low frequency sounds at relatively high soundintensities (Amoser and Ladich, 2005). Although hearing capability data only exists for 100 of the 27,000fish species (Hastings and Popper, 2005), it is thought that most species of fish detect sounds from 0.05 to1.0 kHz (NRC, 2003). Studies indicate that hearing specializations in marine species are quite rare andthat most marine fish are considered hearing generalists (Popper, 2008; Popper, 2003; Amoser andLadich, 2005). Studies have shown different hearing abilities for species within the same family (Amoserand Ladich, 2005). It has also been shown that susceptibility to the effects of anthropogenic sound can beinfluenced by developmental and genetic differences in the same species of fish (Popper et al., 2007).Therefore, generalizations about fish hearing abilities must be made with caution.The potential acoustic effects of underwater explosions may be considered in four categories: Masking – interference with the ability to hear biologically important sounds. Stress – physiological responses including elevated heart rate and release of hormones.Behavior – disruption of natural activities like swimming, schooling, feeding, breeding, and migration.Hearing – permanent hearing loss from high intensity/long duration sounds or temporary hearing lossfrom less intense sounds.If an individual fish were repeatedly exposed to sounds from underwater explosions, the acoustic effectsoutlined above could lead to long-term consequences such as reduced survival, growth, or reproductivecapacity. However, the time scale of individual explosions is very limited, and training exercisesinvolving explosions are dispersed in space and time. Consequently, repeated exposure of individual fishto sounds from underwater explosions is not likely and most acoustic effects are expected to be short-termand localized. Sound from a single explosion could also affect fish recruitment if it occurred in thevicinity of a spawning event. The sound from the explosion could alter the behavior of the fish anddisrupt, delay, or prevent the spawning event from occurring. Given the spatial and temporal dispersionof training activities and spawning events, the probability of an explosion disrupting spawning is expectedto be low. If a spawning event were disrupted, the effects would be localized and a measureablereduction in fish recruitment would not be expected.The number of fish affected by an underwater explosion would depend on the population density in thevicinity of the blast, as well as factors discussed above such as NEW, depth of the explosion, and fishsize. For example, if an explosion occurred in the middle of a dense school of menhaden, herring, orother schooling fish, a large number of fish could be killed. This would not, however, representsignificant mortality in terms of the total population of such fish in the Study Area. Furthermore, theprobability of this occurring is low based on the patchy distribution of dense schooling fish. Fish densityin a given area is inherently dynamic and varies seasonally, daily, and over shorter time frames.Consequently, fish density data are not available for the Study Area and the number of fish affected byunderwater detonations and HE ordnance cannot be accurately quantified.Fish density is influenced by numerous environmental conditions including habitat and productivity. Asdiscussed above in the analysis of habitat disturbance, live hard bottom habitats are limited in areas whereexplosions would take place. In addition, Navy mitigation measures reduce the possibility that largenumbers of fish would be affected. Nonetheless, the training areas where explosions would take place docontain designated EFH and do support many important species of fish.To summarize, a limited number of fish would be killed in the immediate proximity of underwaterexplosions. Additional fish would be injured and could subsequently die or suffer greater rates ofpredation. Beyond the range of lethal or injurious effects, there could be short-term effects such asmasking, stress, behavioral changes, and hearing threshold shifts. However, given the relatively smallarea that would be affected, and the abundance and distribution of the species concerned, no Fish density3-334 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatis influenced by numerous environmental conditions including habitat and productivity. As discussedabove in the analysis of habitat disturbance, live hard bottom habitats are limited in areas whereexplosions would take place. In addition, Navy mitigation measures reduce the possibility that largenumbers of fish would be affected. Nonetheless, the training areas where explosions would take place docontain designated EFH and do support many important species of fish.population-level effects would be expected. When exercises are completed, the fish stock shouldrepopulate the area. The regional abundance and diversity of fish are unlikely to measurably decrease.While these conclusions are primarily based on qualitative judgments, they are supported by the bestscientific information currently available. Quantitative predictions of population-level effects are simplybeyond the capacity of contemporary ocean science. In accordance with NEPA, underwater detonationsand HE ordnance use in territorial waters under the No Action Alternative would not result in significantimpacts to fish populations. In accordance with EO 12114, underwater detonations and HE ordnance usein non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to fish populations.Indirect EffectsIn addition to directly affecting fish and fish habitat, underwater explosions could affect other species inthe food web including plankton and other prey species. The effects of underwater explosions woulddiffer depending upon the type of prey species in the area of the blast. As previously indicated, fish withswim bladders are more susceptible to blast injuries than fish without swim bladders. Invertebratespecies, however, like squid, do not possess air-filled cavities, and therefore are less prone to blast effects(Voss, 1965), although impulsive sound has been implicated in mortality of deep water species (Guerra etal., 2004).In addition to physical effects of an underwater blast, prey might have behavioral reactions to underwatersound. For instance, squid might exhibit a strong startle reaction to detonations that might includeswimming to the surface, jetting away from the source, and releasing ink (McCauley et al., 2000). Thisstartle and flight response is the most common secondary defense among animals (Hanlon andMessenger, 1996). The sound from underwater explosions might induce startle reactions and temporarydispersal of schooling fish and squid if they are within close proximity. The abundances of fish andinvertebrate prey species near the detonation point could be diminished for a short period of time beforebeing repopulated by animals from adjacent waters. No lasting effect on prey availability or the pelagicfood web would be expected. Indirect effects of underwater detonations and HE ordnance use under theNo Action Alternative would not result in a decrease in the quantity or quality of EFH in the Study Areaand would have no adverse effects to EFH as defined under the MSFCMA. In accordance with NEPA,indirect effects of underwater detonations and HE ordnance use in territorial waters under the No ActionAlternative would not result in significant impacts to fish populations or habitat. In accordance with EO12114, indirect effects of underwater detonations and HE ordnance use in non-territorial waters would notcause significant harm to fish populations or habitat.Military Expended MaterialsOverviewThe Navy uses a variety of military expended materials during training exercises conducted in the StudyArea. The types and quantities of expended materials used and information regarding fate and transportof these materials within the marine environment are discussed in Section 3.2. The analyses presented inSections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.6 predict that the majority of the expended materials would rapidly sink to the seafloor, become encrusted by natural processes, and incorporated into the sea floor, with no significantaccumulations in any particular area and no significant negative effects to water quality or marine benthiccommunities. Based on the analyses presented in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.6, impacts associated with3-335 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatmilitary expended materials to EFH would be temporary and/or minimal. Military expended materialsunder the No Action Alternative would not reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area.Therefore, the remainder of this section focuses on the effects of military expended materials on fish.Fish could be exposed to some expended materials via contact and ingestion. Benthic-foraging fish aremore likely to encounter and ingest military expended materials than species that forage in the watercolumn. Fish ingest non-food items incidentally to normal feeding, but also commonly expel non-fooditems before swallowing them. The effects of military expended material ingestion on fish are largelyunknown, but would likely vary depending on species and size of the individual, as well as the type andquantity of material ingested. If ingested, some military expended materials could lodge in the digestivesystem and interfere with food consumption and digestion; resulting in sublethal or lethal effects.Ordnance-related MaterialsOrdnance-related materials include various sizes of NEPM and shrapnel from explosive rounds (Tables2.2-5 and 2.2-6). The solid metal materials would quickly move through the water column and settle tothe sea floor where they could be available for ingestion by benthic-foraging fish. Some materials such asan intact non-explosive practice bomb would be too large to be ingested, but other materials such as smallcaliber ammunition and shrapnel are small enough to be ingested. These materials could pass through thedigestive tract without causing harm, but could also lodge in the digestive system and interfere with foodconsumption and digestion. Some ordnance-related materials contain lead, copper and other metals,which could be toxic to fish when ingested. While ingestion of ordnance-related materials could result insublethal or lethal effects, the likelihood of ingestion is low based on the dispersed nature of the materials.Furthermore, a fish might expel the item before swallowing it. Based on these factors, the number of fishpotentially affected by ingestion of ordnance-related materials would be low and population-level effectswould not occur.Target-related MaterialsMost targets are recovered after use and reused or properly disposed of onshore. Some targets such as 55-gallon metal drums cannot be recovered and sink to the sea floor after use. Unrecoverable floatingmaterials generated by target use are expected to be minimal. Descriptions of targets used in the StudyArea and information on fate and transport are provided in Section 3.2. Benthic foraging fish mayencounter an expended target on the bottom, but the size of the target would prohibit fish from ingestingit.Chaff Fibers, End Caps, and PistonsThe background information and general exposure analysis presented in Section 3.7 for marine mammalsand chaff is also applicable to fish and is not repeated here. Similar to marine mammals, fish could beexposed to chaff through direct body contact and ingestion. Fish are not expected to respond to directcontact with chaff. In addition, any changes in water quality from chaff use would be negligible andwould not be expected to affect fish.Based on the small size of chaff fibers, fish would not confuse the fibers with prey items or purposefullyfeed on them. However, fish could occasionally ingest low concentrations of chaff incidentally whilefeeding on prey items on the surface, in the water column, or on the bottom. The effects of chaff fiberingestion on fish are expected to be negligible based on the low concentration that could reasonably beingested, the small size of the chaff fibers, and available data on the toxicity of chaff and aluminum (seeSection 3.7).The potential also exists for fish to ingest chaff end caps and pistons as they sink through the watercolumn or after they have settled to the bottom. If ingested, it is possible the small, (1.3-inch diameter,3-336 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitat0.13-inch thick) round, plastic end cap or piston would pass through the digestive tract of larger fishwithout causing harm and that a large quantity would need to be ingested to cause harm. Based on thelow environmental concentration (0.6 to 2.0 pieces/nm 2 /year), it is unlikely that a larger number of fishwould ingest an end cap or piston, much less a harmful quantity. Furthermore, a fish might expel the itembefore swallowing it. Based on these factors, the number of fish potentially affected by ingestion of chaffend cap or pistons would be low and population-level effects would not occur.Self-protection FlaresSelf-protection flares consist of a magnesium/Teflon formulation that, when ignited and released from anaircraft, burn for a short period of time (less than 10 seconds) at very high temperatures. Flares releaseheat and light to disrupt tracking of Navy aircraft by enemy infrared tracking devices or weapons. Flaresare designed to burn completely. Under normal operations, the only material that would enter the waterwould be a small, round plastic end cap (approximately 1.4 inch diameter). About 465 self-protectionflares would be used per year under the No Action Alternative.An extensive literature review and controlled experiments conducted by the U.S. Air Force revealed thatself-protection flare use poses little risk to the environment (USAF, 1997). The light generated by flareswould have no effect on fish based on short burn time, relatively high altitudes where they are used, andthe wide-spread and infrequent use. The potential exists for fish to ingest self-protection flare end caps asthey sink through the water column or after they have settled to the bottom. The number of fishpotentially affected by ingestion of self-protection flare end caps would be low based on the lowenvironmental concentration and population-level effects would not occur.Marine MarkersThe MK-25 and MK-58 marine markers produce chemical flames and regions of surface smoke and areused in various training exercises to mark a surface position to simulate divers, ships, and points ofcontact on the surface of the ocean. The marker is not designed to be recovered after use and would sinkto the bottom after burning out. Chemical components of the marker would be consumed during theburning process. Fish in the immediate vicinity could be startled by the light generated by a burningmarine marker on the sea surface. However, the effects would be short-term and localized. The tin andaluminum marine mark canisters are cylindrical. The M-25 is 18.5 in long by 2.9 in diameter and theMK-58 is 21.8 in long by 5 in diameter. While marine markers do not present an ingestion risk based ontheir size, a slight chance exists for a fish to encounter a canister while foraging on the bottom and tobecome lodged in the canister. Adverse effects from marine markers are not anticipated based on thesmall number used under the No Action Alternative (300 per year).In summary, fish could be exposed to a variety of military expended materials under the No ActionAlternative, but the analysis presented above indicates that the effects on fish would be negligible tominor. Military expended materials under the No Action Alternative would not result in adverse effectsto fish populations. In accordance with NEPA, military expended materials in territorial waters under theNo Action Alternative would have no significant impact on fish populations or habitat. Furthermore,military expended materials in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to fish populationsor habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Shortnose SturgeonAs discussed in Section 3.9.2.3, the shortnose surgeon is not expected to occur in portions of the StudyArea located in the Atlantic Ocean (the OPAREA and R-6606) and very rarely occurs in the lowerChesapeake Bay portion of the Study Area. Individuals generally remain within their natal river orestuary, only occasionally moving to marine environments (Dadswell et al., 1984). The currentChesapeake Bay system population appears to be centered in the upper Chesapeake Bay (Welsh et3-337 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatal., 2002). Shortnose sturgeons spawn in freshwater (NMFS, 1998). Consequently, the Study Area doesnot provide suitable spawning or nursery habitat for the shortnose sturgeon.Operations occurring in the Atlantic Ocean (OPAREA and R-6606) would have no effect on theshortnose sturgeon because this species is not expected to be present in these areas. Operations in thelower Chesapeake Bay under the No Action Alternative would be limited to helicopter overflights, vesselmovements, and the use of towed Mine Warfare devices, which occur in the air and in the water column,respectively. Shortnose sturgeon would not be exposed to aircraft overflights, vessel movements, ortowed Mine Warfare devices because they use benthic habitats. Operations in the lower Chesapeake Bayunder the No Action Alternative would have no effect on the shortnose sturgeon. The No ActionAlternative would have no effect on critical habitat because none has been designated for the shortnosesturgeon.Smalltooth SawfishAs discussed in Section 3.9.2.3, the smalltooth sawfish is not expected to occur in the Study Area becauseits current distribution is limited to peninsular Florida, no recent records exist for the Study Area, and itrarely occurs offshore. The No Action Alternative would have no effect on the smalltooth sawfish. TheNo Action Alternative would have no effect on critical habitat because none has been designated for thesmalltooth sawfish.Candidate SpeciesThe effects of the No Action Alternative on the Atlantic sturgeon would be the same as those describedabove for other fish species. The No Action Alternative would not result in significant impacts orsignificant harm to candidate species.Species of ConcernThe effects of the No Action Alternative on species of concern would be the same as those describedabove for other fish species. The No Action Alternative would not result in significant impacts orsignificant harm to species of concern.3.9.3.2 Alternative 1Vessel MovementsVessel movements would increase by about 1.4 percent in the VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 1(Table 2.2-5). These changes would result in increased potential for vessel collision-related fishmortalities and injuries (primarily eggs and larvae) to occur compared to baseline conditions. However,no measurable effects on fish recruitment would occur because the number of eggs and larvae exposed tovessel movements would continue to be low relative to total ichthyoplankton biomass. Vesselmovements would continue to result in short-term and localized disturbances to water column andSargassum habitats, but benthic habitats would not be affected. Navy mitigation measures, which includeavoidance of large Sargassum mats where some fish species tend to concentrate, further reduce theprobability of habitat disturbance and injury or mortality. Impacts to EFH from vessel movements underAlternative 1 would be temporary and minimal. Vessel movements would not reduce the quality and/orquantity of EFH in the Study Area. In accordance with NEPA, vessel movements in territorial watersunder Alternative 1 would have no significant impact on fish populations or habitat. Furthermore, vesselmovements in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to fish populations or habitat inaccordance with EO 12114.3-338 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISAircraft OverflightsChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatAlternative 1 would include a 10 percent increase in fixed-wing aircraft sorties per year and an 88 percentincrease in helicopter sorties per year in the VACAPES Study Area (Table 2.2-5). The new fixed-wingsorties would be widely dispersed and a majority of the new helicopter sorties would occur over the lowerChesapeake Bay and W-50. As a result, the potential for fish to be exposed to elevated noise levelswould increase compared to baseline conditions, particularly in the lower Chesapeake Bay and W-50.The magnitude of individual exposures would not increase because Alternative 1 does not include use ofnew aircraft that are louder than current equipment. Peak noise levels generated by the new MH-60R andMH-60S Multi-Mission Combat Support Helicopters would be similar to the noise levels generated by thehelicopters they would replace.Based on the increased operations under Alternative 1 more fish could be exposed to noise and/or thenumber of times an individual fish is exposed could increase. Similar to the No Action Alternative, theresponses would be limited to short-term behavioral or physiological reactions (e.g., swimming away andincreased heart rate) and the general health of individual fish would not be compromised. Impacts to EFHfrom aircraft overflights under Alternative 1 would be temporary and minimal. Aircraft overflights wouldnot reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area. In accordance with NEPA, aircraftoverflights over territorial waters under Alternative 1 would have no significant impact on fishpopulations or habitat. Furthermore, aircraft overflights over non-territorial waters would not causesignificant harm to fish populations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Towed Mine Warfare DevicesThe number of towed Mine Warfare device sorties would increase by 75 percent per year in the StudyArea under Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). These changes would result in increased potential for toweddevice-related fish mortalities and injuries (primarily eggs and larvae) to occur compared to baselineconditions. However, no measurable effects on fish recruitment would occur because the number of eggsand larvae exposed to towed Mine Warfare devices would continue to be low relative to totalichthyoplankton biomass. Disturbances to water column and Sargassum habitats would be short-term andlocalized. Impacts to EFH from towed Mine Warfare device use under Alternative 1 would be temporaryand minimal. Towed Mine Warfare device use would not reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH inthe Study Area. In accordance with NEPA, the use of towed Mine Warfare devices in territorial watersunder Alternative 1 would have no significant impact on fish populations or habitat. Furthermore, the useof towed Mine Warfare devices in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to fishpopulations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Non-explosive Mine Shape Deployment/RecoveryA Mine Warfare Training Area would be designated in W-50C under Alternative 1 (Figure 2.2-1). Thissection addresses potential effects associated with establishing and maintaining this training area (i.e.,non-explosive mine shape deployment/recovery). The effects of conducting training exercises in this areaare the same as those analyzed under aircraft overflights and towed Mine Warfare devices.As discussed in Chapter 2, the mine shape assembly would include a concrete anchor, mooring line (steelcable or chain), and the mine shape. In some cases the entire assembly (mine shape, mooring line, andanchor) would be deployed concurrently from a boat or aircraft and recovered immediately following theexercise. In other cases concrete anchors would be permanently placed on the sea floor and divers wouldattach the mooring lines and mine shapes for specific exercises. Mine shapes and mooring lines thatwould not pose a navigation or fishing hazard could be left in place for up to six months. Up to 20permanent concrete anchors would be placed in the proposed Mine Warfare Training Area in W-50C(Figure 2.2-2).3-339 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatThe likelihood of a concrete anchor or mine shape directly striking and harming a fish during deploymentis extremely low based on the mobility of fish, size of the assembly, and low number of mine shapes. Theprocess of deploying and recovering mine shape assemblies would result in localized disturbances tobenthic habitat. Benthic organisms could be crushed, injured, or killed by the impact of the concreteanchor. Approximately 6.25 ft 2 of benthic habitat would be disturbed when a concrete anchor makescontact with the sea floor. A similar size area would be affected when a concrete anchor is recovered.The total area affected per year is not expected to exceed 125 ft 2 based on 20 deployments/recoveries peryear. Soft bottom substrates occur in the proposed training area. Mine shapes would not be deployed inareas with live/hard bottom, oyster reefs, SAV, artificial reefs, or shipwrecks. Therefore, disturbedbenthic areas would be expected to quickly recover through natural sedimentation processes. The processof divers attaching mooring lines and mines shapes to permanent concrete anchors would not be expectedto result in more than minor habitat disturbances.The permanent concrete anchors would result in minor, long-term changes to benthic habitat. Eachpermanent anchor would provide about 31.25 ft 2 of exposed hard surface area. Similar to an artificial reefstructure, the anchors would be colonized overtime by benthic organisms that prefer hard substrate andwould provide structure that could attract some species of fish. Localized increases in species richnessand abundance could occur, but significant changes in community structure or function would not beanticipated based on the small surface area provided (625 ft 2 for 20 anchors) and the dispersed nature ofthe anchors.The mooring lines would not present an entanglement risk for fish because they would be held taught bythe anchor and mine shape. Mooring lines would only be left in place for as long as the mine shape is inthe water. Impacts to EFH from mine shape deployment/recovery under Alternative 1 would be minimalbased on the small area affected. Mine shape deployment/recovery would not reduce the quality orquantity of EFH in the Study Area. In accordance with NEPA, mine shape deployment/recovery interritorial waters under Alternative 1 would have no significant impact on fish populations or habitat.Mine shape deployment/recovery would not occur in non-territorial waters under Alternative 1 and wouldhave no effect on fish populations or habitat in non-territorial waters in accordance with EO 12114.Non-Explosive Practice MunitionsThe amount of NEPM used in the VACAPES Study Area would increase under Alternative 1 (Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-6). The number of non-explosive practice bombs dropped in W-72A/B would increase from295 to 325 per year (Table 3.9-5). These changes would result in increased potential for fish/NEPMstrikes and associated fish mortalities and injuries to occur compared to baseline conditions. However,the number of fish affected would continue to be small. Navy mitigation measures, which includeavoidance of large Sargassum mats where some fish species tend to concentrate, further reduce theprobability of NEPM-related injury or mortality.As discussed for the No Action Alternative, disturbances to water column habitats from NEPM strikeswould be short-term and localized. NEPM strikes would cause little or no physical damage to soft bottombenthic habitat, and any damage would be localized. The area affected by non-explosive practice bombswould increase under Alternative 1. The relative non-explosive practice bomb concentration wouldincrease from 2.1 to 2.3 per 100 nm 2 /year in W-72A/B. The probability of non-explosive practice bombsstriking hard bottom EFH or HAPC, or artificial habitats would increase under Alternative 1. However,the total area of benthic habitat affected would continue to be small. As shown in Table 3.9-6, themaximum area of benthic habitat affected by non-explosive practice bomb strikes would increase from3,306 ft 2 per year to 3,619 ft 2 per year or 36,190 ft 2 over a ten-year period. Only a percentage of the totalarea affected (far less than 3,619 ft 2 per year) would be sensitive benthic habitat such as live hard bottom.Non-explosive practice bomb strikes under Alternative 1 could result in long-term, minor effects to3-340 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatbenthic EFH, but the effects would be localized and no long-term changes to community structure orfunction would be expected. Impacts to benthic EFH would be minimal based on the relatively small areaaffected by non-explosive practice bombs. Given the small area affected, NEPM use under Alternative 1would not reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area.In accordance with NEPA, NEPM use in territorial waters under Alternative 1 would have no significantimpact on fish populations or habitat. Furthermore, NEPM use in non-territorial waters would not causesignificant harm to fish populations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Underwater Detonations and High Explosive OrdnanceThe number of MINEX underwater detonations (20-lb charges) would increase from 12 to 24 per year inthe VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 1 (Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-7). These changes would result inincreased potential for explosion-related fish injury or mortality compared to baseline conditions.However, explosions under Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to fish populations basedon the low number of fish that would be affected. The amount of benthic habitat affected by explosionswould continue to be small (approximately 302 to 470 ft 2 per year) and the effects would be short-termand localized. Habitat disturbance and fish injury and mortality from explosions are reduced by Navymitigation measures. Large Sargassum mats where some fish species tend to concentrate are avoided andunderwater detonation charges are not set within 1,000 m of live/hard bottom, artificial reefs, andshipwrecks. Impacts to EFH from underwater detonations and HE ordnance use under Alternative 1would be minimal. Underwater detonations and HE ordnance use would not reduce the quality and/orquantity of EFH in the Study Area. In accordance with NEPA, underwater detonations and HE ordnanceuse in territorial waters under Alternative 1 would have no significant impact on fish populations orhabitat. Furthermore, underwater detonations and HE ordnance use in non-territorial waters would notcause significant harm to fish populations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Military Expended MaterialsThe amount of MEM entering the marine environment would increase in the VACAPES Study Areaunder Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). These changes would result in increased exposure of fish and EFH toMEM. As discussed above for the No Action Alternative and based on the analyses presented inSections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.6, impacts associated with MEM to EFH would be temporary and/or minimal.MEM under Alternative 1 would not reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area. Inaccordance with NEPA, MEM in territorial waters under Alternative 1 would have no significant impacton fish populations or habitat. Furthermore, MEM in non-territorial waters would not cause significantharm to fish populations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Shortnose SturgeonOperations occurring in the Atlantic Ocean (OPAREA and R-6606) under Alternative 1 would have noeffect on the shortnose sturgeon because this species is not expected to be present in these areas.Operations in the lower Chesapeake Bay under Alternative 1 would be limited to helicopter overflights,vessel movements, and the use of towed Mine Warfare devices, which occur in the air and in the watercolumn, respectively. Shortnose sturgeon would not be exposed to aircraft overflights, vesselmovements, and towed Mine Warfare devices because they use benthic habitats. Alternative 1 operationsin the lower Chesapeake Bay would have no effect on the shortnose sturgeon. Alternative 1 would haveno effect on critical habitat because none has been designated for the shortnose sturgeon.3-341 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISSmalltooth SawfishChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatAs discussed in Section 3.9.2.3, the smalltooth sawfish is not expected to occur in the Study Area.Alternative 1 would have no effect on the smalltooth sawfish. Alternative 1 would have no effect oncritical habitat because none has been designated for the smalltooth sawfish.Candidate SpeciesThe effects of Alternative 1 on the Atlantic sturgeon would be the same as those described above for otherfish species. Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts or significant harm to candidatespecies.Species of ConcernThe effects of Alternative 1 on species of concern would be the same as those described above for otherfish species. Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts or significant harm to species ofconcern.3.9.3.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)Vessel MovementsVessel movements that would occur under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). Therefore, the analysis presented above for Alternative 1 is applicable to Alternative 2. Impacts toEFH from vessel movements under Alternative 1 would be temporary and minimal. Vessel movementswould not reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area. In accordance with NEPA, vesselmovements in territorial waters under Alternative 2 would have no significant impact on fish populationsor habitat. Furthermore, vessel movements in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm tofish populations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Aircraft OverflightsAlternative 2 would include a 4.5 percent increase in fixed-wing aircraft sorties per year and a 92 percentincrease in helicopter sorties per year in the VACAPES Study Area (Table 2.2-5). The new fixed-wingsorties would be widely dispersed and a majority of the new helicopter sorties would occur over the lowerChesapeake Bay and W-50. As a result, the potential for fish to be exposed to elevated noise levelswould increase compared to baseline conditions, particularly in the lower Chesapeake Bay and W-50.The magnitude of individual exposures would not increase because Alternative 2 does not include use ofnew aircraft that are louder than current equipment. Peak noise levels generated by the new MH-60R andMH-60S Multi-Mission Combat Support Helicopters would be similar to the noise levels generated by thehelicopters they would replace.Based on the increased operations under Alternative 2 more fish could be exposed to noise and/or thenumber of times an individual fish is exposed could increase. Similar to the No Action Alternative, theresponses would be limited to short-term behavioral or physiological reactions (e.g., swimming away andincreased heart rate) and the general health of individual fish would not be compromised. Impacts to EFHfrom aircraft overflights under Alternative 2 would be temporary and minimal. Aircraft overflights wouldnot reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area. In accordance with NEPA, aircraftoverflights over territorial waters under Alternative 2 would have no significant impact on fishpopulations or habitat. Furthermore, aircraft overflights over non-territorial waters would not causesignificant harm to fish populations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Towed Mine Warfare DevicesThe number of towed Mine Warfare device sorties per year would increase by 78 percent in the StudyArea under Alternative 2 (Table 2.2-5). These changes would result in increased potential for towed3-342 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish Habitatdevice-related fish mortalities and injuries (primarily eggs and larvae) to occur compared to baselineconditions. However, no measurable effects on fish recruitment would occur because the number of eggsand larvae exposed to towed Mine Warfare devices would continue to be low relative to totalichthyoplankton biomass. Impacts to EFH from towed Mine Warfare device use under Alternative 2would be temporary and minimal. Towed Mine Warfare device use would not reduce the quality and/orquantity of EFH in the Study Area. In accordance with NEPA, the use of towed Mine Warfare devices interritorial waters under Alternative 2 would have no significant impact on fish populations or habitat.Furthermore, the use of towed Mine Warfare devices in non-territorial waters would not cause significantharm to fish populations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Non-explosive Mine Shape Deployment/RecoveryMine Warfare Training Areas would be designated in W-50C (same as Alternative 1), W-72, W-386, andthe lower Chesapeake Bay under Alternative 2 (Figures 2.2-1 through 2.2-4). This section addressespotential effects associated with establishing and maintaining these training areas (i.e., non-explosivemine shape deployment/recovery). The effects of conducting training exercises in these areas are thesame as those analyzed under aircraft overflights, towed Mine Warfare devices, and underwaterdetonations and HE ordnance (for W-50C only). Approximately 20 permanent concrete anchors wouldbe placed in the proposed Mine Warfare Training Area in W-50C and approximately 60 would be placedin the proposed training areas in the lower Chesapeake Bay.The likelihood of a concrete anchor or mine shape directly striking and harming a fish during deploymentis extremely low based on the mobility of fish, size of the assembly, and low number of mine shapes. Theprocess of deploying and recovering mine shape assemblies would result in localized disturbances tobenthic habitat. Benthic organisms could be crushed, injured, or killed by the impact of the concreteanchor. Approximately 6.25 ft 2 of benthic habitat would be disturbed when a concrete anchor makescontact with the sea floor. A similar size area would be affected when a concrete anchor is recovered.The total area affected per year is not expected to exceed 1,700 ft 2 based on 270 deployments/recoveriesper year. Soft bottom substrates occur in the proposed training areas. Mine shapes would not bedeployed in areas with live/hard bottom, oyster reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, artificial reefs, orshipwrecks. Therefore, disturbed benthic areas would be expected to quickly recover through naturalsedimentation processes. The process of divers attaching mooring lines and mines shapes to permanentconcrete anchors would not be expected to result in more than minor habitat disturbances.The permanent concrete anchors would result in minor, long-term changes to benthic habitat. Eachpermanent anchor would provide about 31.25 ft 2 of exposed hard surface area. Similar to an artificial reefstructure, the anchors would be colonized overtime by benthic organisms that prefer hard substrate andwould provide structure that could attract some species of fish. Localized increases in species richnessand abundance could occur, but significant changes in community structure or function would not beanticipated based on the small surface area provided (625 ft 2 for 20 anchors in W-50C and 1,875 ft 2 for 60anchors in the lower Chesapeake Bay) and the dispersed nature of the anchors.The mooring lines would not present an entanglement risk for fish because they would be held taught bythe anchor and mine shape. Mooring lines would only be left in place for as long as the mine shape is inthe water. Impacts to EFH from temporary mine shape deployment/recovery under Alternative 2 wouldbe minimal based on the small area affected. Mine shape deployment/recovery would not reduce thequality or quantity of EFH in the Study Area. In accordance with NEPA, mine shapedeployment/recovery in territorial waters under Alternative 2 would have no significant impact on fishpopulations or habitat. Furthermore, mine shape deployment/recovery in non-territorial waters would notcause significant harm to fish populations or habitat under Alternative 2.3-343 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISNon-Explosive Practice MunitionsChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatThe amount of NEPM used would increase under Alternative 1 (Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-6). The number ofnon-explosive practice bombs dropped in W-72A/B would increase from 295 to 537 per year (Table 3.9-5). These changes would result in increased potential for fish/NEPM strikes and associated fishmortalities and injuries to occur compared to baseline conditions. However, the number of fish affectedwould continue to be small. Mitigation measures, which include avoidance of large Sargassum matswhere some fish species tend to concentrate, further reduce the probability of NEPM-related injury ormortality.As discussed for the No Action Alternative, disturbances to water column habitats from NEPM strikeswould be short-term and localized. NEPM strikes would cause little or no physical damage to soft bottombenthic habitat, and any damage would be localized. The area affected by non-explosive practice bombswould increase under Alternative 2. The relative non-explosive practice bomb concentration wouldincrease from 2.1 to 3.8 per 100 nm 2 /year in W-72A/B. The probability of non-explosive practice bombsstriking hard bottom EFH or HAPC, or artificial habitats would increase under Alternative 2. However,the total area of benthic habitat affected would continue to be small. As shown in Table 3.9-6, themaximum area of benthic habitat affected by non-explosive practice bomb strikes would increase from3,306 ft 2 per year to 7,384 ft 2 per year or 73,840 ft 2 over a ten-year period. Only a percentage of the totalarea affected (far less than 7,384 ft 2 per year) would be sensitive benthic habitat such as live hard bottom.Non-explosive practice bomb strikes under Alternative 2 could result in long-term, minor effects tobenthic EFH, but the effects would be localized and no long-term changes to community structure orfunction would be expected. Impacts to benthic EFH would be minimal based on the relatively small areaaffected by non-explosive practice bombs. Given the small area affected, NEPM use under Alternative 2would not reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area.In accordance with NEPA, NEPM use in territorial waters under Alternative 2 would have no significantimpact on fish populations or habitat. Furthermore, NEPM use in non-territorial waters would not causesignificant harm to fish populations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Underwater Detonations and High Explosive OrdnanceAs summarized in Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-7, underwater detonations and HE ordnance use under Alternative2 would be the same as Alternative 1, with the following exceptions:The number of HE bombs used would decrease from 465 to 20 per year.Use of the MK-103 system in W-50C would result in 50 underwater explosions per year (0.002-lbsNEW).Use of the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) in W-50C would result in 30 underwaterexplosions (3.24-lbs NEW).Water column disturbances and potential fish mortality associated with explosions under Alternative 2would be substantially lower than the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 based on the reduction inHE bomb use.Water column disturbances and the potential for fish mortality would increase in W-50C underAlternative 2 based on underwater detonations associated with the MK-103 and AMNS Mine Warfaredevices. Fish in the immediate vicinity of explosions could be injured or killed. Prior to detonation,some fish might flee the immediate area in response to water column disturbances associated the MineWarfare devices being towed through the water. Such evasive responses, the small NEW of the charges,and low number of detonations (total of 80 per year) reduce the likelihood of fish being exposed toimpacts from these explosions. Consequently, the number of fish affected by underwater detonationsassociated with the MK-103 and AMNS is expected to be low.3-344 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatThe effects of explosions associated with FIREX with IMPASS, MISSILEX, and 20-lb NEW underwaterdetonations under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1. FIREX with IMPASS andMISSILEX would continue to result in short-term and localized water column disturbances and potentialfish mortality. Underwater detonations would continue to impact up to 302 to 470 ft 2 per year of softbottom benthic habitat, and the effects would be short-term and localized. Overall, the impacts fromunderwater detonations and HE ordnance use for Alternative 2 would be substantially lower than the NoAction Alternative and Alternative 1 based on the reduction in HE bomb use. Impacts to EFH fromunderwater detonations and HE ordnance use under Alternative 2 would be minimal. Underwaterdetonations and HE ordnance use would not reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area.In accordance with NEPA, underwater detonations and HE ordnance use in territorial waters underAlternative 2 would have no significant impact on fish populations or habitat. Furthermore, underwaterdetonations and HE ordnance use in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to fishpopulations or habitat in accordance with EO 12114.Military Expended MaterialsThe amount of MEM entering the marine environment under Alternative 2 would be the same asAlternative 1, with the exception of an increase in non-explosive practice bombs (Table 2.2-5). Asdiscussed above for the No Action Alternative and based on the analyses presented in Sections 3.2, 3.3,and 3.6, impacts associated with MEM to EFH would be temporary and/or minimal. MEM underAlternative 1 would not reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area. In accordance withNEPA, MEM in territorial waters under Alternative 2 would have no significant impact on fishpopulations or habitat. Furthermore, MEM in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm tofish populations or habitat in accordance with EP 12114.Shortnose SturgeonOperations occurring in the Atlantic Ocean (OPAREA and R-6606) under Alternative 2 would have noeffect on the shortnose sturgeon because this species is not expected to be present in these areas.Operations in the lower Chesapeake Bay under Alternative 2 would include helicopter overflights, vesselmovements, and the use of towed Mine Warfare devices, which occur in the air and in the water column,respectively. Shortnose sturgeon would not be exposed to aircraft overflights, vessel movements, ortowed Mine Warfare devices because they use benthic habitats.Establishment of Mine Warfare Training Areas in the lower Chesapeake Bay under Alternative 2 wouldinvolve deployment of non-explosive mine shapes. The likelihood of a concrete anchor or mine shapedirectly striking and harming a shortnose sturgeon during deployment is extremely low based on the veryrare occurrence of this species in the area, the mobility of fish, size of the assembly, and low number ofmine shapes. Deployment and recovery of the mine shape assemblies would result in short-term andlocalized disturbances to benthic habitat, but any effects to the shortnose sturgeon would be insignificantbased on the small area affected and the fact that suitable shortnose sturgeon spawning and nurseryhabitat are not present.Although exposure to mine shape deployment/recovery would be extremely unlikely and discountablebecause the shortnose sturgeon rarely occurs in the lower Chesapeake Bay, non-explosive mine shapedeployment/recovery operations in the lower Chesapeake Bay under Alternative 2 may affect theshortnose sturgeon. Alternative 2 would have no effect on critical habitat because none has beendesignated for the shortnose sturgeon.3-345 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISSmalltooth SawfishChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatAs discussed in Section 3.9.2.3, the smalltooth sawfish is not expected to occur in the Study Area.Alternative 2 would have no effect on the smalltooth sawfish. Alternative 2 would have no effect oncritical habitat because none has been designated for the smalltooth sawfish.Candidate SpeciesThe effects of Alternative 2 on the Atlantic sturgeon would be the same as those described above for otherfish species. Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts or significant harm to candidatespecies.Species of ConcernThe effects of Alternative 2 on species of concern would be the same as those described above for otherfish species. Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts or significant harm to species ofconcern.3.9.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThe analysis presented above indicates that the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2would not result in unavoidable significant adverse effects to fish populations or EFH.3.9.5 Summary of Environmental Effects3.9.5.1 Endangered Species ActTable 3.9-8 provides a summary of the Navy’s determination of effect for the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 (the Preferred Alternative) and federally listed fish that potentially occuror historically occurred in the VACAPES Study Area. Operations conducted in the Atlantic Ocean(OPAREA and R-6606) under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would have noeffect on the shortnose sturgeon. Operations conducted in the lower Chesapeake Bay under the NoAction Alternative and Alternative 1 would have no effect on the shortnose sturgeon. Operationsconducted in the lower Chesapeake Bay under Alternative 2 may affect the shortnose sturgeon. The NoAction Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would have no effect on the smalltooth sawfish. TheStudy Area does not contain designated critical habitat for any listed species. Consequently, the proposedaction would have no effect on critical habitat. The Navy is consulting with NMFS regarding itsdetermination of effect for federally listed fish.3.9.5.2 Sustainable Fisheries Act – Essential Fish HabitatAs summarized in Table 3.9-9, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would notadversely affect EFH. Any impacts would be temporary and/or minimal. The No Action Alternative,Alternative 1, or Alternative 2 would not reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH in the Study Area.3.9.5.3 National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114As summarized in Table 3.9-9, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would have nosignificant impact on fish populations or habitat in territorial waters in accordance with NEPA.Furthermore, in accordance with EO 12114 the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2would not cause significant harm to fish populations or habitat in non-territorial waters.3-346 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-8SUMMARY OF THE NAVY’S DETERMINATION OF EFFECT FOR FEDERALLY LISTEDFISH POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA FOR ALLStressorALTERNATIVESShortnoseSturgeon(Atlantic Ocean)ShortnoseSturgeon (LowerChesapeake Bay)SmalltoothSawfishVessel MovementsVessel Disturbance No Effect No Effect No EffectVessel Strikes No Effect No Effect No EffectAircraft OverflightsAircraft Disturbance No Effect No Effect No EffectAircraft Strikes No Effect No Effect No EffectTowed Mine Warfare DevicesTowed Device Strikes No Effect No Effect No EffectMine Warfare Training Area EstablishmentNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNo Effect No Effect (1) No EffectMay Affect (2)Non-explosive Practice MunitionsWeapons Firing Disturbance No Effect No Effect No EffectNon-Explosive Practice Munitions Strikes No Effect No Effect No EffectUnderwater Detonations and High ExplosiveOrdnanceUnderwater Detonations No Effect No Effect No EffectHigh Explosive Ordnance No Effect No Effect No EffectMilitary Expended MaterialsOrdnance Related Materials No Effect No Effect No EffectTarget Related Materials No Effect No Effect No EffectChaff No Effect No Effect No EffectSelf Protection Flares No Effect No Effect No EffectMarine Markers No Effect No Effect No Effect(1) No effect determination applies to the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1.(2) May affect determination applies to Alternative 2.3-347 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-9SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON FISH ANDESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREAAlternative andStressorNo ActionVessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed Mine WarfareDevicesSummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionNEPA and SFA(U.S. Territory)EFH – Vessel movements would result inshort-term, localized disturbances towater column and Sargassum habitats.Impacts to Sargassum habitats would beavoided and minimized by mitigationmeasures. Vessel movements would notdisturb the sea floor and would have noimpact on benthic habitats. Impacts toEFH would be temporary and minimal.Fish/Managed Species – Vesselmovements could elicit behavioral and/orphysiological responses in fish, but theeffects would be temporary and localized.The probability of vessel strikes withadult and juvenile fish would be low.Injury and mortality to fish eggs andlarvae would occur, but the effects wouldbe localized. No population-levelimpacts would occur.EFH – Aircraft overflights would resultin short-term and localized increases inambient sound levels in the water columnand possibly in shallow water benthichabitats. Impacts to EFH would betemporary and minimal.Fish/Managed Species – Aircraftoverflights could elicit behavioral and/orphysiological responses in some speciesof fish, but the effects would betemporary and localized. No populationlevelimpacts would occur.EFH - Towed MIW devices would resultin short-term, localized disturbances towater column and Sargassum habitats.Impacts to Sargassum habitats would beminimized by avoidance. Towed MIWdevices would not disturb the sea floorand would have no impact on benthichabitats. Impacts to EFH would betemporary and minimal.Fish/Managed Species – Towed MIWdevices could elicit behavioral and/orphysiological responses in fish, but theeffects would be temporary and localized.The probability of strikes with adult andjuvenile fish would be low. Injury andmortality to fish eggs and larvae wouldoccur, but the effects would be localized.No population-level impacts would occur.Executive Order 12114 and SFA(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)EFH – Same as territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species – Same asterritorial waters.EFH – Same as territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species – Same asterritorial waters.EFH – Same as territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species – Same asterritorial waters.3-348 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-9SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON FISH ANDESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA (Continued)Summary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative andStressorMine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-explosivePractice MunitionsUnderwaterDetonations and HighExplosive OrdnanceNEPA and SFA(U.S. Territory)Not applicable to No Action AlternativeEFH – Similar to non-territorial waters,but lower magnitude because most NEPMis used in non-territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species - Similar to nonterritorialwaters, but lower magnitudebecause most NEPM is used in nonterritorialwaters.EFH – Underwater explosions interritorial waters would be limited toMINEX UNDETs, which would result indisturbance to water column habitats.However, water column disturbanceswould be short-term and localized, andassociated effects to water column EFHwould be temporary and minimal.Executive Order 12114 and SFA(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Not applicable No Action Alternative.EFH - Disturbances to water columnhabitats from NEPM strikes would betemporary and minimal. Impacts toSargassum habitat would be minimalbecause Navy mitigation measuresrequire avoidance of Sargassum mats.Impacts to soft bottom benthic EFHwould be temporary and minimal. Thetotal area of benthic habitat affected bynon-explosive practice bombs would besmall (about 3,309 ft 2 per year) and only apercentage of the total area affected (farless than 3,309 ft 2 per year)would besensitive benthic habitat such as live hardbottom. Non-explosive practice bombscould result in log-term, minor effects tohard bottom EFH, but the effects wouldbe localized and no long-term changes tocommunity structure or function would beexpected. Impacts to hard bottom EFHwould be minimal based on the relativelysmall area affected.Fish/Managed Species - A remotepossibility exists that some individual fishat or near the surface may be directlyimpacted if they are in the target area andat the point of physical impact at the timeof NEPM delivery. Navy mitigationmeasures, which include avoidance oflarge Sargassum mats where some fishspecies tend to concentrate, reduce theprobability of NEPM-related injury ormortality. A limited number of fishmight be injured or killed, but NEPMstrikes would not result in populationleveleffects.EFH – Explosions associated withBOMBEX, MISSILEX, and FIREX withIMPASS occur at or near the water'ssurface in relatively deep waters. Watercolumn disturbances would be short-termand localized, and associated effects towater column EFH would be temporaryand minimal. Impacts to Sargassum3-349 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-9SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON FISH ANDESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA (Continued)Alternative andStressorMilitary ExpendedMaterialsImpact ConclusionSummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionNEPA and SFAExecutive Order 12114 and SFA(U.S. Territory)(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)habitat would also be minimal becauseNavy mitigation measures requireavoidance of Sargassum mats.Calculations indicate that the maximumradius of the gas bubble produced bythese explosions would not extend to thesea floor. Therefore, explosions duringthese exercises are not expected to resultin physical disturbance to benthichabitats. Impacts to EFH would betemporary and minimal.Fish/Managed Species – Effects wouldbe similar to those described for territorialwaters, but additional fish would beaffected because explosions associatedwith BOMBEX, MISSILEX, and FIREXwith IMPASS occur in non-territorialwaters. Given the relatively small areathat would be affected, and the abundanceand distribution of the species concerned,no population-level effects would beexpected.Assuming a worst–case scenario whereall 12 MINEX 20-lb charges weredetonated directly on the bottom, up to151 to 235 ft 2 of soft bottom benthichabitat could be disturbed by underwaterdetonations per year. Crater effects areusually temporary in sand and mudbottoms and repopulation of displacedsediments should be relatively rapidcompared to hard bottom areas (NRC,2002). Impacts to EFH would betemporary and minimal.Fish/Managed Species – A limitednumber of fish would be killed in theproximity of underwater explosions.Additional fish would be injured andcould subsequently die or suffer greaterrates of predation. Beyond the range oflethal or injurious effects, there could beshort-term effects such as masking, stress,behavioral changes, and hearing thresholdshifts. However, given the relativelysmall area that would be affected, and theabundance and distribution of the speciesconcerned, no population-level effectswould be expected.EFH – The majority of the expendedmaterials would rapidly sink to the seafloor, become encrusted by naturalprocesses, and incorporated into the seafloor, with no significant accumulationsin any particular area and no significantnegative effects to water quality ormarine benthic communities. Impactsassociated with military expended to EFHwould be minimal.Fish/Managed Species – Some MEMcould be ingested by some species of fishand could cause sublethal or lethaleffects. However, the number of fishaffected would be small and nopopulation-level effects would occur.SFA – Impacts to EFH would betemporary and/or minimal. No reductionin the quality and/or quantity of EFH inthe Study Area.NEPA - No significant impact to fishpopulations or habitat.EFH – Same as territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species – Same asterritorial waters.SFA – Impacts to EFH would betemporary and/or minimal. No reductionin the quality and/or quantity of EFH inthe Study Area.Executive Order 12114 - No significantharm to fish populations or habitat.3-350 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-9SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON FISH ANDESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA (Continued)Alternative andStressorAlternative 1Vessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed Mine WarfareDevicesMine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-ExplosivePractice MunitionsUnderwaterDetonations and HighExplosive OrdnanceSummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionNEPA and SFA(U.S. Territory)EFH - Slight increase compared to NoAction.Fish/Managed Species - Slight increasecompared to No Action.EFH - Slight increase compared to NoAction.Fish/Managed Species - Slight increasecompared to No Action.EFH – Similar to No Action withincrease in sorties.Fish/Managed Species - Similar to NoAction with increase in sorties.EFH – Deployment/recovery of concreteanchors would disturb approximately 125ft 2 of soft bottom benthic habitat per year.Impacts to benthic EFH would beminimal based on the small area affected.Fish/Managed Species – A small numberof benthic organisms could be crushed,but no population-level effects wouldoccur.EFH – Similar to non-territorial waters,but lower magnitude because most NEPMis used in non-territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species - Similar to nonterritorialwaters, but lower magnitudebecause most NEPM is used in nonterritorialwaters.EFH – Similar to No Action, withincrease in MINEX UNDETs from 12 to24 per year. Assuming a worst–casescenario where all 24 MINEX 20-lbcharges were detonated directly on theExecutive Order 12114 and SFA(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)EFH – Same as territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species – Same asterritorial waters.EFH – Same as territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species – Same asterritorial waters.EFH – Same as territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species – Same asterritorial waters.Not applicable to non-territorial waters.EFH – Similar to No Action withincrease in non-explosive practice bombs.The total area of benthic habitat affectedby non-explosive practice bombs wouldbe small (about 3,619 ft 2 per year) andonly a percentage of the total areaaffected (far less than 3,619 ft 2 per year)would be sensitive benthic habitat such aslive hard bottom. Non-explosive practicebombs could result in long-term, minoreffects to hard bottom EFH, but theeffects would be localized and no longtermchanges to community structure orfunction would be expected. Impacts tohard bottom EFH would be minimalbased on the relatively small areaaffected.Fish/Managed Species – Similar to NoAction with increased potential forNEPM/fish strikes from increased NEPMuse.EFH - Similar to No Action, withincrease in HE missiles.Fish/Managed Species - Similar to NoAction, with increase in HE missiles.3-351 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-9SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON FISH ANDESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA (Continued)Alternative andStressorMilitary ExpendedMaterialsImpact ConclusionSummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionNEPA and SFA(U.S. Territory)bottom, up to 302 to 470 ft 2 of softbottom benthic habitat could be disturbedby underwater detonations per year.Crater effects are usually temporary insand and mud bottoms and repopulationof displaced sediments should berelatively rapid compared to hard bottomareas (NRC, 2002). Impacts to EFHwould be temporary and minimal.Fish/Managed Species – Effects wouldbe similar to those described for the NoAction, but additional fish would beaffected because detonations wouldincrease. Given the relatively small areathat would be affected, and the abundanceand distribution of the species concerned,no population-level effects would beexpected.EFH - Similar to No Action, withincrease in materials.Fish/Managed Species - Similar to NoAction, with increase in materials.SFA – Impacts to EFH would betemporary and/or minimal. No reductionin the quality and/or quantity of EFH inthe Study Area.NEPA - No significant impact to fishpopulations or habitat.Executive Order 12114 and SFA(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)EFH – Same as territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species – Same asterritorial waters.SFA – Impacts to EFH would betemporary and/or minimal. No reductionin the quality and/or quantity of EFH inthe Study Area.Executive Order 12114 - No significantharm to fish populations or habitat.3-352 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-9 (Continued)SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON FISH ANDESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREASummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative andStressorAlternative 2Vessel MovementsAircraft OverflightsTowed Mine WarfareDevicesMine ShapeDeployment/RecoveryNon-ExplosivePractice MunitionsUnderwaterDetonations and HighExplosive OrdnanceNEPA and SFA(U.S. Territory)EFH - Slight increase compared to NoAction.Fish/Managed Species - Slight increasecompared to No Action.EFH - Slight increase compared to NoAction.Fish/Managed Species - Slight increasecompared to No Action.EFH – Similar to No Action withincrease in sorties.Fish/Managed Species - Similar to NoAction with increase in sorties.EFH – Deployment/recovery of concreteanchors would disturb approximately1,700 ft 2 of soft bottom benthic habitatper year. Impacts to benthic EFH wouldbe minimal based on the small areaaffected.Fish/Managed Species – A small numberof benthic organisms could be crushed,but no population-level effects wouldoccur.EFH – Similar to non-territorial waters,but lower magnitude because most NEPMis used in non-territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species - Similar to nonterritorialwaters, but lower magnitudebecause most NEPM is used in nonterritorialwaters.EFH – Similar to No Action, withincrease in MINEX UNDETs from 12 to24 per year. Assuming a worst–casescenario where all 24 MINEX 20-lbExecutive Order 12114 and SFA(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)EFH – Same as territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species – Same asterritorial waters.EFH – Same as territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species – Same asterritorial waters.EFH – Same as territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species – Same asterritorial waters.Not applicable to non-territorial waters.EFH – Similar to No Action withincrease in non-explosive practice bombs.The total area of benthic habitat affectedby non-explosive practice bombs wouldbe small (about 7,384 ft 2 per year) andonly a percentage of the total areaaffected (far less than 7,384 ft 2 per year)would be sensitive benthic habitat such aslive hard bottom. Non-explosive practicebombs could result in long-term, minoreffects to hard bottom EFH, but theeffects would be localized and no longtermchanges to community structure orfunction would be expected. Impacts tohard bottom EFH would be minimalbased on the relatively small areaaffected.Fish/Managed Species – Similar to NoAction with increased potential forNEPM/fish strikes from increased NEPMuse.EFH – Elimination of HE BOMBEXwould result in a substantial decrease inwater column disturbance compared to3-353 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.9 – Fish and Fish HabitatTABLE 3.9-9 (Continued)SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON FISH ANDESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREAAlternative andStressorMilitary ExpendedMaterialsImpact ConclusionSummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionNEPA and SFAExecutive Order 12114 and SFA(U.S. Territory)(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)No Action.charges were detonated directly on thebottom, up to 302 to 470 ft 2 of softbottom benthic habitat could be disturbedby underwater detonations per year.Crater effects are usually temporary insand and mud bottoms and repopulationof displaced sediments should berelatively rapid compared to hard bottomareas (NRC, 2002). Impacts to EFHwould be temporary and minimal.Fish/Managed Species – Effects wouldbe similar to those described for the NoAction, but additional fish would beaffected because detonations wouldincrease. Given the relatively small areathat would be affected, and the abundanceand distribution of the species concerned,no population-level effects would beexpected.EFH - Similar to No Action, withincrease in materials.Fish/Managed Species - Similar to NoAction, with increase in materials.SFA – Impacts to EFH would betemporary and/or minimal. No reductionin the quality and/or quantity of EFH inthe Study Area.NEPA - No significant impact to fishpopulations or habitat.Fish/Managed Species - Elimination ofHE BOMBEX would result in asubstantial decrease in associated effectsto fish compared to No Action.EFH – Same as territorial waters.Fish/Managed Species – Same asterritorial waters.SFA – Impacts to EFH would betemporary and/or minimal. No reductionin the quality and/or quantity of EFH inthe Study Area.Executive Order 12114 - No significantharm to fish populations or habitat.3-354 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.10 SEABIRDS AND MIGRATORY BIRDSChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birds3.10.1 Introduction and Methods3.10.1.1 Regulatory FrameworkThe VACAPES Study Area does not include land areas. Therefore, this section focuses on seabirds andlandbirds that could migrate over open-water areas of the VACAPES Study Area seasonally. While thegeneral Study Area for this EIS/OEIS extends up to the shoreline (mean high tide line), none of theproposed activities would take place within 1 mile of the shoreline. Birds using wetlands, mud flats,beaches, and other shoreline habitats would not be exposed to stressors associated with the proposedactivities. Therefore, this section does not address shorebirds and wading birds in detail.Seabirds are birds whose normal habitat and food source is the sea, whether they utilize coastal waters(the nearshore), offshore waters (the continental shelf), or pelagic waters (the open sea) (Harrison, 1983).Migratory birds are any species or family of birds that live, reproduce, or migrate within or acrossinternational borders at some point during their annual life cycle. The seabirds addressed in thisEIS/OEIS are migratory birds.The regulatory framework for seabirds and migratory birds is described in detail in Appendix K. TheMigratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 is the primary legislation in the United States established toprotect migratory birds. The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, or possessing of migratory birds unlesspermitted by regulation. Incidental take of migratory birds during Department of Defense (DoD) militaryreadiness activities is addressed by a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior andpublished in the Federal Register on February 28, 2007 (50 CFR Part 21).Two seabird species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) potentially occur within theVACAPES Study Area. These include the Bermuda petrel, Pterodroma cahow, and roseate tern, Sternadougallii. Therefore, the ESA requirements discussed in Appendix K are applicable to the analysis ofthese species.3.10.1.2 Assessment Methods and Data UsedGeneral Approach to AnalysisThe general approach to analysis for seabirds and migratory birds is the same as the approach describedfor marine mammals in Section 3.7.1.2.Study AreaThe study area for seabirds and migratory birds is described in Section 1.5 and is shown in Figure 1.5-1.The study area is analogous to the “action area,” for purposes of analysis under Section 7 of the ESA.Data SourcesA comprehensive, systematic review of relevant literature and data was conducted to complete thisanalysis for seabirds and migratory birds and to ensure that the best available information was used. Bothpublished and unpublished scientific literature, including the following types of documents, were utilizedin the assessment: journals, books, periodicals, bulletins, DoD operations reports, EISs, and othertechnical reports published by government agencies, private businesses, consulting firms, or nongovernmentalconservation organizations. The scientific literature was also consulted during the searchfor geographic location data on the occurrence of resources within the study area. A primary source ofinformation used to describe the affected environment for pelagic seabirds was the Pelagic BirdAssessment for the Navy's Atlantic Operating Areas (DoN, 2007), which provides information on the lifehistory and distribution of seabirds occurring along the U.S. Atlantic coast and in the offshore waters of3-355 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birdsthe Navy’s Atlantic Operating Areas. Descriptions of literature and data searches conducted duringpreparation of the pelagic bird assessment report are described in detail in that document.Factors Used to Assess EffectsThis EIS/OEIS analyzed potential effects to seabirds and migratory birds in the context of the MBTA,ESA (listed species only), NEPA, and Executive Order (EO) 12114. The factors used to assess thesignificance of effects vary under these requirements. Factors considered under the MBTA, NEPA, andEO 12114 include the extent to which an alternative could diminish the capacity of a population of amigratory bird species to maintain genetic diversity, reproduce, and function effectively in its nativeecosystem over a reasonable period of time. For purposes of ESA compliance, effects of the action wereanalyzed to make the Navy’s determination of effect for listed species. The definitions used in makingthe determination of effect under Section 7 of the ESA are based on the USFWS and NMFS EndangeredSpecies Consultation Handbook (USFWS and NMFS, 1998) and are provided in Section 3.7.1.1.3.10.1.3 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsThe Navy used a screening process to identify aspects of the proposed action that could act as stressors toseabirds and migratory birds. Navy subject matter experts analyzed the warfare areas and operationsincluded in the proposed action to identify specific activities that could act as stressors. Public andagency scoping comments, previous environmental analyses, previous agency consultations, laws,regulations, executive orders, and resource-specific information also were evaluated. This process wasused to focus the information presented and analyzed in the affected environment and environmentalconsequences sections of this EIS/OEIS.As summarized in Table 3.10-1, potential stressors to seabirds and migratory birds include: Vessel movements (disturbance and strikes); Aircraft overflights (disturbance and strikes); Towed mine warfare devices (strikes); Mine warfare training area establishment (non-explosive mine shape deployment and recovery); Non-explosive practice munitions (NEPM) (disturbance and strikes); Underwater detonations and high-explosive ordnance; and Expended materials such as targets, chaff, self-protection flares, and marine markers (ingestion).The potential effects of these stressors on seabirds and migratory birds are analyzed in detail inSection 3.10.3.As discussed in Section 3.3 Water Resources and Section 3.4 Air Quality, some water and air pollutantswould be released into the environment as part of the proposed action. The analyses presented inSections 3.3 and 3.4 indicate that any increases in water or air pollutant concentrations resulting fromNavy training in the study area would be negligible and localized, and impacts to water and air qualitywould not be significant. Based on the analyses presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, water quality and airquality changes would have no effects or negligible effects on seabirds and migratory birds. Accordingly,the effects of water quality and air quality changes on seabirds and migratory birds are not addressedfurther in this EIS/OEIS.3-356 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex Final Draft EIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsTABLE 3.10-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO SEABIRDS AND MIGRATORY BIRDS a/Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Strikes)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Strikes)Towed Mine Warfare DevicesNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment and RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh-explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and Operation Training AreasMine Warfare (MIW)Mine countermeasures exercise (MCM) Lower Chesapeake Bay Mine countermeasures exercise (MCM) W-50A/C, W-386, W-72 Mine neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing exercise (air-to-surface) (at sea)W-386 (Air-K), W-72A(Air-3B), W-72A/B Missile exercise (MISSILEX) (air-tosurface)W-386 (Air-K), W-72A Gunnery exercise (GUNEX) (air-tosurface)W-72A (Air-1A), W-50CW-386 (Air-K), W-72A, GUNEX (surface-to-surface) boat W-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (surface-to-surface) ship W-386, W-72 Laser targeting W-386 (Air-K) Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure/MaritimeInterception Operations (VBSS/MIO)- VACAPES OPAREA ShipVBSS/MIO- Helo VACAPES OPAREA Air Warfare (AW)Air combat maneuver (ACM) W-72A (Air-2A/B, 3A/B) GUNEX (air-to-air) W-72A 3-357 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex Final Draft EIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsTABLE 3.10-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO SEABIRDS AND MIGRATORY BIRDS a/(Continued)Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Strikes)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Strikes)Towed Mine Warfare DevicesNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment and RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh-explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and Operation Training AreasMISSILEX (air-to-air)W-386 (Air D, G, H, K),W-72A GUNEX (surface-to-air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (surface-to-air) W-386 (Air D, G, H, K) Air intercept control (AIC) W-386, W-72 Detect to engage (DTE) W-386, W-72 Strike Warfare (STW)HARM missile exercise W-386 (Air E, F, I, J) Amphibious Warfare (AMW)FIREX (surface-to-surface) with IntegratedMaritime Portable Acoustic Scoring andSimulator System (IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)Chaff exercise - aircraftW-386 (7C/D, 8C/D),W-72 (1C1/2) (PreferredAreas), W-386 (5C/D)(Secondary Areas )W-386, W-386 (Air-K),W-72 3-358 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex Final Draft EIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsTABLE 3.10-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO SEABIRDS AND MIGRATORY BIRDS a/(Continued)Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Strikes)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Strikes)Towed Mine Warfare DevicesNon-explosive Mine ShapeDeployment and RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh-explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsWarfare Area and Operation Training AreasChaff exercise - ship W-386, W-72 Flare exercise - aircraftElectronic combat (EC) operations -aircraftW-386, W-386 (Air-K),W-72W-386 (Air-K) EC operations - ship VACAPES OPAREA Test and EvaluationShipboard Electronic Systems EvaluationFacility (SESEF) utilizationVACAPES OPAREA a/ For detailed information on the numbers and types of ordnance, specific weapons platforms, types of targets used, and location of operations, see Table 2.2-4and Appendix D.3-359 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birds3.10.2 Affected Environment3.10.2.1 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsSeabird Use of the Study AreaTable 3.10-2 lists seabirds that could potentially occur in the VACAPES Study Area. Seabird distributionand abundance varies considerably by species, with some species primarily occurring in nearshorehabitats and others primarily occurring in offshore, pelagic habitats.TABLE 3.10-2SEABIRDS POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA a/Family and Scientific NameCommon NameAlcidaeAlca tordaRazorbillAlle alleDovekieCepphus grylleBlack guillemotFratercula arcticaAtlantic puffinUria lomviaThick-billed murreUuria aalgeCommon murreDiomedeidaeThalassarche chlororhynchosYellow-nosed albatrossFregatidaeFregata magnificensMagnificent frigatebirdGaviidaeGavia immerCommon loonHydrobatidaeOceanites oceanicusWilson’s storm-petrelOceanodroma castroBand-rumped storm-petrelOceanodroma leucorhoaLeach’s storm-petrelPelagodroma marinaWhite-faced storm-petrelLaridaeAnous stolidusBrown noddyLarus argentatusHerring gullLarus atricillaLaughing gullLarus delawarensisRing-billed gullLarus fuscusLesser black-backed gullLarus glaucoidesIceland gullLarus hyperboreousGlaucous gullLarus marinusGreat black-backed gullLarus minutusLittle gullLarus ridibundusBlack-headed gullLarus thayeriThayer’s gullLarus philadelphiaBonaparte’s gullRissa tridactylaBlack-legged kittiwakeStercorarius maccormickiSouth polar skuaStercorarius skuaGreat skuaOnychoprion anaethetusBridled ternSterna antillarum Least tern c/Sterna caspiaCaspian ternSterna dougallii Roseate tern d/Sterna forsteriForster’s ternSterna fuscataSooty ternSterna hirundoCommon ternSterna maximaRoyal tern3-360 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsTABLE 3.10-2SEABIRDS POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA(Continued)Family and Scientific NameCommon NameSterna niloticaGull-billed ternSterna sandvicensisSandwich ternPelecanidaePelecanus erythroryhyncosAmerican white pelicanPelecanus occidentalisBrown pelicanPhaethontidaePhaethon aethereusRed-billed tropicbirdPhaethon lepturusWhite-tailed tropicbirdPhalacrocoracidaePhalacrocorax auritusDouble-crested cormorantPhalacrocorax carboGreat cormorantProcellariidaeCalonectris diomedeaCory’s shearwaterFulmarus glacialisNorthern fulmarPterodroma arminjonianaHerald petrelPterodroma cahow Bermuda petrel (=cahow) e/Pterodroma feaeFea’s petrelPterodroma hasitataBlack-capped petrelPuffinus gravisGreater shearwaterPuffinus griseusSooty shearwaterPuffinus lherminieriAudubon’s shearwaterPuffinus puffinusManx shearwaterScolopacidaePhalaropus fulicariusRed phalaropePhalaropus lobatusRed-necked phalaropeSulidaeSula dactylatraMasked boobySula leucogasterBrown boobyStercorariidaeStercorarius parasiticusParasitic jaegerStercorarius longicaudusLong-tailed jaegerStercorarius pomarinusPomarine jaegera/ Sources: Golder, 2004 and DoN, 2007.b/ Number in the Outer Continental Shelf IBA, as reported in Golder (2004).c/ Least tern is federally listed as endangered on U.S. west coast and interior rivers. Birds that might occur in the VACAPESStudy Area are not federally listed.d/ The Northeast breeding population of the roseate tern is federally listed as endangered. This species is listed as threatenedin other areas.e/ The Bermuda petrel is federally listed as endangered throughout its range.The area from the beach to about 10 nm offshore provides:Foraging areas for breeding terns, gulls, skimmers, and pelicans. The beach and very near shore areasprovide habitat for the piping plover, Wilson’s plover, American oystercatcher, and black skimmer.As noted in Section 3.10.1.1, birds using wetlands, mud flats, beaches, and other shoreline habitatswould not be exposed to stressors associated with the proposed activities. Therefore, this section doesnot address shorebirds and wading birds in detail;A migration corridor and winter habitat for terns, gulls, skimmers, pelicans, loons, cormorants, andgannets; andSupport areas for non-breeding and transient pelagic seabirds.3-361 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsOffshore pelagic waters support non-breeding and transient pelagic seabirds, loons, gannets, and severaltern species (Hunter et al., 2006).Important Bird AreasPelagic seabirds are generally widely distributed, but they tend to congregate in areas along the GulfStream, around the continental shelf break, near upwellings, and in areas with large Sargassum mats. Themost significant congregating site in the southeastern United States is off Cape Hatteras, North Carolinaand partially within the VACAPES OPAREA. This area, which was identified as the Outer ContinentalShelf Important Bird Area (IBA) by Audubon North Carolina, covers about 716 nm 2 on the westernboundary of the Gulf Stream in an area with water depths of 90 meters to 900 meters (Figure 3.10-1).The cool waters from the Labrador Current and the warm waters of the Gulf Stream meet in this area tocreate one of the richest and most important areas for pelagic birds in the western Atlantic. Large mats ofSargassum form in this area, resulting in a high concentration of seabirds and many forms of marine life.The IBA boundary shown in Figure 3.10-1 should be considered a “soft edge,” based on the dynamicnature of the physical and biological environment of the Gulf Stream.The Outer Continental Shelf IBA has the greatest diversity of seabirds in the southeastern United States,and probably has the greatest density of tropical seabirds in the region (Golder, 2004; Hunter et al., 2006).The limited abundance data provided in Golder (2004) for key bird species found in the Outer ContinentalShelf IBA are included in Table 3.10-2. However, no current population estimates exist for pelagicseabirds in the southeast region (Hunter et al., 2006).Productive inshore ocean waters and waters of the Chesapeake Bay provide important foraging areas for agreat variety of birds during all months of the year. Some of the species that use these waters includepelicans, loons, terns, and gulls.Inshore ocean waters between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Virginia have been identified as theOuter Banks, Inshore Ocean IBA by Audubon North Carolina (Figure 3.10-1). This IBA, which coversabout 235 nm 2 and extends from the surf zone seaward to about 3.1 miles offshore, is important forcoastal birds throughout the year. During spring and summer, this IBA is a key foraging area for ternsnesting on nearby beaches and islands. During winter months, the IBA supports North Carolina’s largestpopulation of northern gannets and red-breasted mergansers. Many species of gulls and terns forage inthe area during migration, while loons and sea ducks use it as a migration corridor (Golder, 2004).Several other IBAs in the general vicinity of the VACAPES Study Area encompass land, marsh, and openinshore waters. Additional IBAs in the area include, but are not limited to the following: Cape Hatteras and Pea Island IBAs in North Carolina (Golder, 2004); Barrier Island/Lagoon System and Lower Delmarva IBAs in Virginia (National Audubon Society,2004); and Assateague Island IBA in Maryland (National Audubon Society, 2004).These IBAs provide valuable nesting and foraging habitats, important resting areas, and migrationcorridors for migratory birds.The Barrier Island/Lagoon System IBA is located outside the VACAPES Study Area along the westernedge of the Delmarva Peninsula from the mouth of Chesapeake Bay to the Maryland border. It coversabout 260,000 acres of barrier islands along the Atlantic Coast, maritime forests, extensive salt marshes,inter-tidal mudflats, and open water. This IBA is the most important bird area in Virginia and one of themost important bird areas along the Atlantic Coast of North America. The area has been designated as aUnited Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Biosphere Reserve and a Western3-362 March 2009

76°W75°W74°W73°W72°W.C.ANNAPOLISMilfordWildwoodDELAWARELewesRehoboth BeachSeafordAir-AAtlantic CityOPAREAAir-BAir-CNAS Patuxent RiverLexington ParkPrincess AnneMARYLANDOcean City38°NCrisfieldAir-DAir-EAir-F38°NNASAWallops IslandCape Charles3 nm State Limit12 nm Territorial LimitAir-GAir-HVACAPES OPAREAAir-IVictorAir-JAir-K37°NNORFOLKSMOUTHNEWPORT NEWSNS NorfolkNAB Little CreekVIRGINIABEACHNAS Oceana37°NVIRGINIAAir-1AAir-1BNORTHCAROLINANorth-CorridorAir-2AAir-1CAir-1DAir-1EAir-1F36°NAlbemarle SoundOuter Banks IBANags HeadSouth-CorridorAir-3AAir-2BCentral-CorridorAir-2CVACAPES OPAREA36°NAir-2DAir-3BAir-2EThe PointAir-2FPamlico SoundCapeHatterasOuter ContinentalShelf IBAAir-3C35°NCherry Pointd City3 nm State Limitit12 nm Territorial LimAir-3DAir-3E35°NCherry PointOPAREAATLANTICOCEAN34°N34°N39°N39°N76°W75°W74°W73°W72°WWVPAMDDENJLegendVACAPES OPAREAAudubon Important Bird Areas (IBA)Figure 3.10-1VAAir GridNon-Explosive Practice MunitionsSCNC3 nm State Boundary12 nm Territorial Limit"The Point"Mean Gulf Stream AxisStandard Deviation of Gulf Stream AxisImportant Bird Areas0 12.5 25 50 75 100Nautical MilesVACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-363

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsHemisphere Shorebird Reserve Site with international status. It is the site of a National ScienceFoundation Long-term Ecological Research site, and is the focus of a multi-organizational partnershipdedicated to bird conservation (National Audubon Society, 2004).Birds Using the Lower Chesapeake BayThe lower Chesapeake Bay region is an important area for both landbirds and waterbirds because it islocated in the Atlantic Flyway and provides an abundance of diverse habitat. About 29 species ofwaterfowl use the Chesapeake Bay for wintering, breeding, or as a stopover during migration. Extensivewintering habitat is of major importance, with about one million waterfowl wintering on the Bay annually(Phillips, 2007; CBP, 1990). Large numbers of pelagic seabirds also winter on the lower Chesapeake Bayand can be observed there during other times of year, particularly after severe storms or hurricanes. Thearea provides foraging, nesting, and migration stopover habitat to marsh, shore, and wading birds(Phillips, 2007). Many landbirds also cross the lower Chesapeake Bay during biannual migrations. TheDelmarva Peninsula channels southbound landbirds towards the mouth of the Bay during the fallmigration. Migrants use habitats near the southern tip of the peninsula before crossing the Bay andcontinuing south along the Atlantic Coast to winter. Annually, between August and December, over 10million neotropical and temperate passerines (perching birds) and 80 thousand raptors (birds of prey suchas hawks) are estimated to migrate through this area (National Audubon Society, 2008). The islands ofthe Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, which spans the mouth of the Bay, are also a popular recreationalbirding destination, providing birders an opportunity to spot more than 350 species of birds.The proposed Mine Warfare Training Areas in the lower Chesapeake Bay are located in open waters morethan 1 mile from shore. Therefore, species that favor open water habitat such as sea ducks (e.g., scoters,mergansers, goldeneyes, long-tailed ducks, buffleheads, and harlequin ducks) and seabirds (e.g., terns,gulls, Northern Gannets, petrels, storm petrels, and shearwaters) would be expected to occur in theseareas, particularly during the winter.Numerous species of waterbirds and landbirds could also cross the proposed Mine Warfare TrainingAreas in the lower Chesapeake Bay during biannual (spring and fall) migrations. The vast majority ofmigrating birds would be expected to cross the lower Bay at night, although some birds migrate indaylight (Kerlinger, 1995; Lincoln, 1998). The altitudes at which migrating birds fly can vary greatlybased on the type of bird, where they are flying (over water or over land), and other factors such asweather (Kerlinger, 1995). As seen by radar, some nocturnal migrants (probably shorebirds) fly over theocean at 15,000 or even 20,000 feet (Lincoln, 1998). Some species such as sea ducks and loons may becommonly seen flying just above the water' surface, but the same species can also be spotted flying sohigh that they are barely visible through binoculars (Kerlinger, 1995; Lincoln, 1998). While there isconsiderable variation, the favored altitude for most small birds appears to be between 500 and 1,000 feet.Radar studies have demonstrated that 95 percent of the migratory movements occur at less than 10,000feet, the bulk of the movements occurring under 3,000 feet (Lincoln, 1998).3.10.2.2 Birds Listed under the Endangered Species ActThe Bermuda petrel and roseate tern, both of which could potentially occur in the VACAPES Study Area,are listed under the ESA. Additional information about these species is provided below. Critical habitatfor these listed birds has not been designated under the ESA within the VACAPES Study Area. Thepiping plover (Charadrius melodus), which is federally listed as threatened, is known to occur adjacent tothe VACAPES Study Area. Atlantic coast piping plovers breed on coastal beaches from Newfoundlandand southeastern Quebec to North Carolina. They forage along the shoreline and on mud flats. None ofthe proposed training activities would take place within 1 mile of the shoreline. Therefore, the pipingplover would not be exposed to stressors associated with the proposed activities and is not addressed infurther detail in this EIS/OEIS. The Navy has completed the ESA Section 7 informal consultation3-364 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birdsprocess with USFWS. In a letter dated October 7, 2008, USFWS concurred that Alternative 2 (thePreferred Alternative) would have no effect on the piping plover (Appendix C).While not listed under the ESA, others species potentially occurring in the study area are of managementconcern based on relatively low or declining populations. These include the black-capped petrel, maskedbooby, brown booby, razorbill, sooty shearwater, and northern gannet (Hunter et al., 2006).The black-capped petrel is of particular concern because the worldwide breeding population is currentlyestimated at 1,000 pairs (BirdLife International, 2007a). Waters in or adjacent to the Gulf Streambetween northern Florida and southern Virginia comprise the primary non-breeding range of blackcappedpetrels. The main foraging area appears to be offshore from Cape Hatteras National Seashore,North Carolina (Hunter et al., 2006).Bermuda PetrelThe Bermuda petrel, also known as cahow, is the rarest of the four gadfly petrels found in the northAtlantic. It was likely abundant on Bermuda until human settlement led to habitat destruction,exploitation of petrels as a food source, and the introduction of predatory mammals such as rats.Bermuda petrels feed at the sea surface primarily on small squid, shrimp, and small fish. They may oftenfeed at night to avoid predators and capture prey that surfaces to feed on plankton (Brinkley andHumann, 2001).Status and Management - The Bermuda petrel is listed as endangered under the ESA throughout itsrange. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.This species was thought to be extinct for nearly 300 years, until it was rediscovered in the first half of the20th century. The Bermuda petrel population was estimated at 250 birds in 2005 (BirdLife International,2007a). A record number of young (40) fledged in 2003, and another 35 fledged in 2005 (BirdLifeInternational, 2007a). While current population numbers are extremely low, the Bermuda petrelpopulation is increasing.Bermuda petrel breeding habitat is limited to small islets in Castle Harbor, Bermuda. The habitat isprotected and intensely managed for this species. Potential threats to Bermuda petrels in the pelagicenvironment include fisheries interactions; exposure to oil and hazardous materials; debris ingestion andentanglement; and strikes with lighted vessels, platforms, and wind energy turbines (Hunter et al., 2006).Distribution – From late October through early June, Bermuda petrels can be observed in small breedingcolonies on several islets in Castle Harbor, Bermuda. Adult breeding pairs arrive at nesting sites as earlyas October and begin a courtship period that involves paired nocturnal flights. A single egg is laid,usually in January, and chicks hatch in late February or early March. The chick is ready to fledge in lateMay to early June; however, it is not uncommon for the parents to abandon the chick two weeks or morebefore it is able to fly (BirdLife International, 2007a).When it is not breeding, the Bermuda petrel may be distributed throughout the north Atlantic, but it isprimarily found in the warm waters of the Gulf Stream between Bermuda and North Carolina. However,a capture in 2002 on the Azores in the eastern Atlantic indicates the species is capable of a widedistributional range (BirdLife International, 2007a). In recent years, several confirmed sightings haveoccurred off the coast of North Carolina, where the Gulf Stream separates from the U.S. coast and flowsaway from shore into the Atlantic (BirdLife International, 2007a). The full range of the Bermuda petrel isdifficult to identify, because of its low worldwide population (estimated 250 individuals) and its similarappearance to other species in the same region (BirdLife International, 2007a).Bermuda Petrel Occurrence in the VACAPES Study Area – Increasing observations and photographicdocumentation provide evidence that Bermuda petrels regularly forage in the Gulf Stream waters off3-365 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsNorth Carolina (Hunter et al., 2006). At least one published record (Lee, 1987) exists for the VACAPESStudy Area in W-72A(2) (surface grid cell 3B3).Bermuda petrels would most likely be found in the VACAPES Study Area from May through August, butnon-breeding adults and juveniles may also be present in this region at other times of the year (DoN,2007). For example, the published record noted above is for a sighting in December. Outside thebreeding season, Bermuda petrels are most likely to move north of Bermuda and follow the western andnorthern wall of the Gulf Stream while foraging (BirdLife International, 2007a). This species is notexpected to occur in nearshore waters of the VACAPES Study Area or the lower Chesapeake Bay.Density data for the Bermuda petrel in the VACAPES Study Area or other areas are not available.However, the maximum density would not exceed 0.05 birds per nm 2 , assuming that all members of theworldwide population (250 birds) were foraging in the study area simultaneously; and the birds wereconcentrated in Gulf Stream waters, which make up about 17 percent of the study area, or 4,750 nm 2 .Actual density would be much lower because birds are expected to forage in areas outside the study area.Roseate TernStatus and Management - The northeastern breeding population of roseate terns is listed as endangeredunder the ESA. The range of this population extends along the U.S. Atlantic Coast from Canada south toNorth Carolina (USFWS, 2007a and 2007b). Roseate terns in this population are known to occur inMaine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginiaas well as in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Quebec. Beyond the northeastern region, the roseate ternis listed as threatened in the Western Hemisphere and adjacent oceans, essentially wherever it is not listedas endangered. Threatened populations are known to occur in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, SouthCarolina, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin islands (USFWS, 2007a).The global population is estimated to be 40,000 breeding pairs. The northeastern population has beenfluctuating at around 3,500 pairs, recording a low of 3,125 pairs in 1992 and a high of 3,775 pairs in 1996(BirdLife International, 2007b; USFWS, 2007b). In 1993, the Caribbean population was estimated to bebetween 5,000 and 8,500 pairs, with 350 of those pairs breeding in the Florida Keys (USFWS, 2007b).Distribution - The roseate tern is widespread in the Atlantic, Indian, and southwestern Pacific Oceans;although local populations are generally small (BirdLife International, 2007b; NatureServe, 2007). In theAtlantic Ocean, the northeastern breeding population is concentrated in isolated colonies mainly betweenCape Cod, Massachusetts and Long Island, New York. Additionally, a Caribbean population breeds inthe Florida Keys, Bahamas, West Indies, and other locations in central and northern South America.Non-breeding populations are found in and around the Bahamas, Cuba, and the Lesser Antilles(NatureServe, 2007). Roseate terns prey on small, schooling fish by plunge-diving from the air into water(NatureServe, 2007).The northern population migrates to their Caribbean wintering grounds well off the Atlantic Coast and areonly rarely observed during pelagic trips or in coastal areas in the southeastern United States (Hunter etal., 2006). Roseate terns are occasional visitors along the Outer Banks, south of Cape Hatteras,particularly at Cape Point within Cape Hatteras National Seashore, during the months of July and August.They may rarely be seen in late spring and early summer (USFWS, 2007c).Roseate Tern Occurrence in VACAPES Study Area - Roseate terns are not expected to occur in theVACAPES Study Area except as occasional, transient individuals.3-366 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birds3.10.3 Environmental Consequences3.10.3.1 No Action AlternativeVessel MovementsAs discussed in Section 3.7.3, many of the ongoing and proposed operations within the VACAPES StudyArea involve maneuvers by various types of Navy vessels. Birds could be exposed to moving vesselsthroughout the study area, but few direct encounters would occur based on the infrequency of operationsand the low density of vessels within the study area at any time (0 to 10 vessels at any time, which resultsin a maximum density of fewer than 0.0004 vessels per nm 2 ; see Section 3.7.3 for overview of vesselmovements). The Navy would log about 1,400 total steaming days within the study area during a typicalyear under the No Action Alternative (Table 2.2-5).Birds respond to moving vessels in various ways. Some birds commonly follow vessels, including certainspecies of gulls, storm petrels, and albatrosses (Hamilton, 1958; Hyrenbach, 2001; Hyrenbach, 2006).Other species such as frigatebirds and sooty terns seem to avoid vessels (Borberg et al., 2005; Hyrenbach,2006).Vessel movements could elicit short-term behavioral or physiological responses, such as alert response,startle response, fleeing the immediate area, or temporary increase in heart rate. However, the generalhealth of individual birds would not be compromised. An additional discussion of these responses isprovided below under aircraft overflights.Direct strikes with vessels or interactions with a vessel’s rigging (such as fishing gear, wires, poles, ormasts) can result in bird injury or mortality. The possibility of encounters could increase at night,especially during inclement weather. Birds can become disoriented at night in the presence of artificiallight (Bruderer et al., 1999; Black, 2005), and lighting on vessels may attract some seabirds (Hunter et al.,2006), increasing the potential for harmful encounters. Harmful seabird/vessel interactions are commonlyassociated with commercial fishing vessels because birds are attracted to concentrated food sourcesaround these vessels (Melvin et al., 2001; Dietrich and Melvin, 2004).Based on the low Navy vessel density and patchy distribution of seabirds in the study area, the probabilityof bird/vessel strikes is extremely low. Navy training activities attempt to simulate warlike conditions;therefore, in an attempt to remain visually disguised, vessels do not typically use large deck lights orstrobes. This reduces the potential attraction of nocturnal foraging seabirds. Furthermore, theconcentrated food sources that attract seabirds to commercial fishing vessels are absent around Navyvessels. Navy mitigation measures (see Chapter 5), which include avoidance of large Sargassum matswhere seabirds tend to concentrate, further reduce the probability of vessel disturbance and strikes.If a bird were to collide with a vessel, individual injury or mortality could occur. However, vesselmovements under the No Action Alternative would not have a significant, adverse effect on migratorybird populations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. Inaccordance with NEPA, vessel movements in territorial waters would have no significant impact on birds.In accordance with EO 12114, vessel movements in non-territorial waters would not cause significantharm to birds. Effects of the No Action Alternative on the federally listed Bermuda petrel and roseatetern are analyzed below.Aircraft OverflightsAircraft DisturbanceVarious types of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters are used in training exercises throughout theVACAPES Study Area (see Chapter 2 and Appendix D). Seabirds and other migratory birds could beexposed to airborne noise associated with subsonic and supersonic, fixed-wing aircraft overflights and3-367 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birdshelicopter operations. See Section 3.5 Airborne Noise Environment for a description of the existing noiseenvironment and Appendix H for an overview of airborne acoustics. Birds could be exposed to elevatednoise levels while foraging or migrating in open water environments within the Atlantic Ocean or thelower Chesapeake Bay. With the exception of an occasional high-altitude (greater than 3,000 feet) fixedwingaircraft overflight, none of the proposed aircraft training would take place within 1 mile of theshoreline. Therefore, exposure of birds to aircraft noise while they are using wetlands, mud flats,beaches, and other shoreline habitats would be negligible.Numerous studies have documented that birds and other wild animals respond to human-made noise,including aircraft overflights, weapons firing, and explosions (National Park Service, 1994; Larkin, 1996;Plumpton, 2006). The manner in which birds respond to noise depends on several factors, including lifehistorycharacteristics of the species, characteristics of the noise source, loudness, onset rate, distancefrom the noise source, presence or absence of associated visual stimuli, and previous exposure.Researchers have documented a range of bird behavioral responses to noise, including no response, alertbehavior, startle response, flying or swimming away, diving into the water, and increased vocalizations(National Park Service, 1994; Larkin, 1996; Plumpton, 2006). While they are difficult to measure in thefield, some of these behavioral responses are likely accompanied by physiological responses, such asincreased heart rate or stress.Chronic stress can compromise the general health of birds, but stress is not necessarily indicative ofnegative consequences to individual birds or to populations (National Park Service, 1994; Larkin, 1996;Bowles et al., 1990 in Larkin, 1996). For example, the reported behavioral and physiological responsesof birds to noise exposure are within the range of normal adaptive responses to external stimuli, such aspredation, that birds face on a regular basis. Unless repeatedly exposed to loud noises or simultaneouslyexposed to synergistic stressors, it is possible that individuals would return to normal almost immediatelyafter exposure and the individual's metabolism and energy budgets would not be affected. Studies havealso shown that birds can become habituated to noise following frequent exposure and cease to respondbehaviorally to the noise (National Park Service, 1994; Larkin, 1996; Plumpton, 2006). Little is knownabout physiological responses of birds that have habituated to noise.Approximately 5,966 fixed-wing sorties would occur in the VACAPES Study Area annually under the NoAction Alternative and approximately 98 percent of the sorties would be above 3,000 feet. Bird exposureto fixed-wing aircraft noise would be brief (seconds) as an aircraft quickly passed overhead. Exposureswould be infrequent, based on the transitory, dispersed nature of the overflights, and repeated exposure ofindividual birds over a short period of time (hours or days) would be extremely unlikely.While fixed-wing aircraft operations could occur in SUA throughout the VACAPES Study Area underthe No Action Alternative, most sorties would be associated with air combat maneuver (ACM) training,which takes place in W-72A (Air-2A/B and Air-3A/B) (Figure 2.1-2). Under the No Action Alternative,approximately 5,264 ACM sorties (F/A-18 aircraft) would occur annually (average of 14 sorties per day).Altitudes would range from 5,000 to 30,000 feet and typical airspeeds would range from very low (lessthan 100 knots) to high subsonic (less than 600 knots). Sound exposure levels at the sea surface frommost ACM overflights are expected to be less than 85 decibels on an A-weighted scale (dBA), based onan F/A-18 aircraft flying at an altitude of 5,000 feet and at a subsonic airspeed of 400 knots. Some ACMtraining would involve supersonic flight, which would produce sonic booms, but such airspeeds would beinfrequent.A portion of the Outer Continental Shelf IBA, which supports a high concentration of seabirds, is locatedunder Air-3A/B where ACM overflights occur. However, seabirds at or near the sea surface in this areamay not respond to overflight noise, based on the relatively high flight altitudes (5,000 to 30,000 feet).Most documented responses of birds have been to low-level aircraft overflights occurring below3-368 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birds3,000 feet (National Park Service, 1994). The duration of exposure would be very short (seconds) andexposures would be infrequent. Unlike the situation at a busy commercial airport or military landingfield, repeated exposure of individual birds or groups of birds would be unlikely based on the dispersednature of the overflights. If birds were to respond to an overflight, the responses would be limited toshort-term behavioral or physiological reactions, such as alert response, startle response, or temporaryincrease in heart rate, and the general health of individual birds would not be compromised.Approximately 1,743 helicopter sorties would occur in the VACAPES Study Area annually under the NoAction Alternative. Helicopter overflights would occur throughout the VACAPES Study Area, with mostoccurring in W-50 and the lower Chesapeake Bay. The W-50 area is south of the mouth of theChesapeake Bay and from about 3 to 12 nm offshore. This area is also located east of the AtlanticFlyway, which generally follows the shoreline. Helicopter use in the lower Chesapeake Bay occurs northand west of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. A variety of seabirds, including large rafts of sea ducksin the lower Chesapeake Bay, could be exposed to helicopter noise in the areas beneath helicopter sorties.However, Navy pilots are trained to avoid large flocks of birds to protect aircrews and equipment. Suchmeasures would also minimize bird exposure to helicopter noise. In addition, landbirds could be exposedin the lower Chesapeake Bay area during seasonal migrations. However, exposure during migration isexpected to be minimal because most helicopter sorties would occur during daylight hours and mostmigrating birds would cross the lower Bay at night (Kerlinger, 1995; Lincoln, 1998).Unlike fixed-wing aircraft, helicopter training operations occur mostly at low altitudes: approximately 90percent are below 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL) and 10 percent are below 200 feet AGL. Thisincreases the likelihood that birds would respond to helicopter overflights. In addition, some studies havesuggested that birds respond more to noise from helicopters than from fixed-wing aircraft (Larkin, 1996;Plumpton, 2006). Noise from low-altitude helicopter overflights may elicit short-term behavioral orphysiological responses, such as alert response, startle response, and/or temporary increase in heart rate,in exposed birds. Repeated exposure of individual birds or groups of birds is unlikely, based on thedispersed nature of the overflights. The general health of individual birds would not be compromised.In summary, aircraft noise under the No Action Alternative could elicit short-term behavioral orphysiological responses in exposed birds. Helicopter overflights would be more likely to elicit responsesthan fixed-wing aircraft, but the general health of individual birds would not be compromised. Aircraftnoise under the No Action Alternative would not have a significant adverse effect on migratory birdpopulations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordancewith NEPA, aircraft noise over territorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. Inaccordance with EO 12114, aircraft noise over non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm tobirds.Aircraft StrikesWildlife/aircraft strikes are a major concern for the Navy because they can cause harm to aircrews,damage to equipment, and injury or mortality to wildlife. From 2002 through 2004, an annual average of596 known wildlife/aircraft strike events occurred Navy-wide, and most of these events involved birds(Navy Safety Center, 2004). While all wildlife/aircraft strikes are serious and potentially dangerousevents, the number of animals injured or killed annually is small, considering the number of Navy-wideaircraft operations.While bird strikes can occur anywhere aircraft are operated, Navy data indicate they occur most oftenover land or close to shore. The potential for bird strikes to occur in offshore areas is relatively lowbecause operations are widely dispersed at relatively high altitudes (above 3,000 feet for fixed-wingaircraft) and bird densities are generally low. For example, from 2002 through 2004, only five knownbird strikes involving vessel-based aircraft occurred Navy-wide.3-369 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsOf the 1,789 Navy-wide, wildlife-strike events reported for 2002 through 2004, only 19 (1%) involvedseabirds. Nine (47%) of the seabird strike events involved gulls (Navy Safety Center, 2004), whichcommonly occur in terrestrial environments or over nearshore waters.In addition, Navy pilots are trained to avoid large flocks of birds to protect aircrews and equipment. Forexample, Navy pilots would avoid large rafts of sea ducks or large aggregations of other seabirds duringlow-altitude helicopter operations in the lower Chesapeake Bay to ensure safety.Few, if any, bird/aircraft strikes and associated bird mortalities or injuries are expected to occur in thestudy area under the No Action Alternative. Aircraft strikes under the No Action Alternative would nothave a significant adverse effect on migratory bird populations as defined by MBTA regulationsapplicable to military readiness activities. In accordance with NEPA, aircraft strikes over territorialwaters would have no significant impact on bird populations. In accordance with EO 12114, aircraftstrikes over non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to bird populations.Towed Mine Warfare DevicesAs described in Chapter 2 and Appendix D, mine warfare exercises conducted in the study area includethe use of various underwater mine detection and countermeasures systems that are towed through thewater by helicopters flying approximately 75 feet above the water at low airspeeds. This training wouldoccur in the lower Chesapeake Bay (a minimum of 1 mile from the shoreline) and portions of theOPAREA within 45 nm of NS Norfolk (see Figures 2.2-1, 2.2-2, 2.2-3, and 2.2-4). Effects on birds fromthis training could include the following: Birds could be injured or killed if they were struck on the water by the towed device or the tow lineconnecting the helicopter to the device. The noise, downdraft, and visual cues from the nearby helicopter would cause birds in the immediatearea to flee. Such birds could be struck by the tow line during an evasive response because the towline might be difficult to see.However, these effects are unlikely, because birds typically would evade the helicopter long before thetow lines presented a strike risk.Similar to aircraft strikes discussed above, few if any bird/towed device strikes and associated birdmortalities or injuries are expected to occur in the study area under the No Action Alternative. Towedmine warfare device use under the No Action Alternative would not have a significant adverse effect onmigratory bird populations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. Inaccordance with NEPA, towed mine warfare device use in territorial waters would have no significantimpact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114, the use of towed mine warfare devices in non-territorialwaters would not cause significant harm to birds.Mine Warfare Training Area Establishment (Non-explosive Mine Shape Deployment andRecovery)The No Action Alternative does not include establishment of mine warfare training areas where nonexplosivemine shapes would be deployed.Non-Explosive Practice MunitionsWeapons-Firing DisturbanceCurrent Navy operations in the study area include firing a variety of weapons and employing a variety ofnon-explosive practice munitions (NEPM), including bombs, missiles, naval gun shells, cannon shells,and small-caliber ammunition. NEPM use occurs in several training areas, but its use in state waters (0 to3 nm from shore) is limited to R-6606. (See Table 2.2-6 for a summary of ordnance use by training area.)3-370 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsOrdnance use is not authorized in W-110, W-387, or the lower Chesapeake Bay. Disturbance associatedwith weapons-firing noise and direct NEPM strikes are potential stressors to birds.Bird responses to weapons-firing noise are expected to be similar to those discussed above for fixed-wingaircraft and helicopter operations, including short-term behavioral or physiological responses such as alertresponse, startle response, and/or temporary increase in heart rate. These operations are often precededby other activity in the general area, such a vessel movement or target setting, which might disperse birdsaway from the area in which weapons-firing noise would occur. Therefore, birds might not be exposed tothe loudest noise levels associated with weapons firing.The general health of individual birds would not be compromised and weapons-firing noise would notresult in significant impacts to migratory bird populations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable tomilitary readiness activities. In accordance with NEPA, weapons-firing noise in territorial waters wouldhave no significant impact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114, weapons-firing noise in nonterritorialwaters would not cause significant harm to birds.Non-Explosive Practice Munitions StrikesFired NEPM has the potential to directly strike birds as it travels through the air to its intended target. Asdiscussed in Sections 3.7.3 and 3.8.3, statistical modeling conducted for the VACAPES Study Areaindicates that the probability of NEPM striking marine mammals and sea turtles is extremely low.Statistical modeling could not be conducted to estimate the probability of seabird/NEPM strikes becauseseabird density data are not available. Nonetheless, several factors discussed below indicate that theprobability of NEPM directly striking a seabird is also expected to be extremely low under the No ActionAlternative.The highest concentrations of seabirds within the VACAPES Study Area are expected to occur in the areaof the Outer Continental Shelf IBA, much of which is located in W-110. Ordnance use is not authorizedin W-110, which would reduce the probability of bird strikes in this area.The small number of bombs and missiles that would be expended in the study area annually (Table 2.2-5),coupled with the often patchy distribution of seabirds (Schneider and Duffy, 1985; Haney, 1986;Fauchald et al., 2002), suggest that the probability of these types of NEPM striking a seabird would beextremely low. The number of cannon shells, gun shells, and small-arms rounds that would be expendedannually during gunnery exercises is much higher (Table 2.2-5). However, the total number of roundsexpended is not a good indicator of strike probability during gunnery exercises, because multiple roundsare fired at individual targets.Navy mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, maintaining a dedicated lookout to monitor thetarget area for marine life, and clearing an area of bird concentrations before firing occurred. Exercisesalso avoid large Sargassum mats where seabirds tend to concentrate. These standard procedures furtherreduce the probability of NEPM strikes. See Chapter 5 for a detailed description of mitigation measures.Human activity such as vessel or boat movement, aircraft overflights, and target setting could cause birdsto flee a target area prior to the onset of firing, thus avoiding harm. If birds were in the target area, theywould likely flee the area after the initial rounds struck the target area (assuming the birds were not struckby the initial rounds).There would be a very small possibility that some individual seabirds may be directly impacted if theywere in the target area and at the point of physical impact at the time of ordnance delivery. However,NEPM strikes under the No Action Alternative would not result in significant impacts to populations ofmigratory birds as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. Inaccordance with NEPA, NEPM strikes in territorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. In3-371 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birdsaccordance with EO 12114, NEPM strikes in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm tobirds.Underwater Detonations and High-explosive OrdnanceExplosions that occur in the OPAREA are associated with training exercises that use high-explosive (HE)ordnance, including bombs (BOMBEX), missiles (MISSILEX), naval gun shells (FIREX with IMPASS,5-inch HE rounds), and underwater detonations associated with mine neutralization training (MINEX).Underwater detonation and HE ordnance use is limited to specific training areas (see Table 2.2-7 for asummary of explosions by training area) and does not occur in the lower Chesapeake Bay or in statewaters of the Atlantic Ocean (0 to 3 nm from shore).The potential for seabirds to be exposed to explosions is difficult to quantify, and depends on severalfactors including the following: The geographic location of the explosions within the study area and whether birds are present at thetime of the explosion. Most explosions occur in Air-K and Air-3B (Table 2.2-7). While seabirdscould be exposed in any of the areas where explosions occurred, the potential for exposure of pelagicseabirds would appear to be highest in Air-3B. Although seabird density data are not available for thestudy area, Air-3B is expected to support relatively high concentrations of pelagic seabirds based onits proximity to the Outer Continental Shelf IBA and Gulf Stream. Most of the Outer ContinentalShelf IBA and the Gulf Stream are located in areas where explosions do not occur. Position of the explosion in relationship to the sea surface, such as altitude above the surface, at thesurface, or depth below the surface. Explosions associated with bombs, missiles, and naval gunshellsoccur at or immediately below the sea surface, while underwater detonations occur on the bottom andat depths below the surface. Position of the bird in the environment at the time of explosion, such as in the air, on the surface, ordiving below the surface. Studies have shown that birds are more susceptible to underwaterexplosions when they are submerged versus on the surface (Yelverton et al., 1973). Similarly, birds inflight are expected to be less susceptible to underwater explosions than those on the surface. Magnitude of the explosion, expressed as net explosive weight (NEW) and the zone of influence (ZOI)associated with the explosion. While ZOIs cannot be calculated for seabirds based on available data,higher NEWs would produce larger ZOIs. Of the explosions that would occur in the study area, HEbombs would have the largest ZOIs (see Table 2.2-7 for NEW values).In general, the effects of explosions would correspond to the distance of the bird from the explosion, andwould range from lethal injury in the immediate vicinity of an explosion to short-term behavioral effectson the outer edges of the ZOI. Yelverton et al. (1973) found that ducks submerged 2 feet below thesurface experienced 100 percent mortality when exposed to 1-lb underwater charges at slant ranges of 28feet or less. Mortality decreased to 33 percent at slant ranges of 31 to 33 feet, and no mortality wasobserved at a slant range of 36 feet. However, most birds at 36 feet experienced extensive lunghemorrhage and some experienced liver ruptures, hemorrhagic kidneys, and eardrum ruptures. Nointernal injuries were found at a slant range of 110 feet for submerged ducks.Ducks exposed while on the water surface were less susceptible to injury and death than the submergedducks. Death occurred at slant ranges of 13 to 14 feet for ducks on the surface when exposed to 8-lbcharges. Ducks exposed to 8-lb charges while on the surface survived at slant ranges of 15 to 21 feet, butthey experienced internal injuries. No mortality was observed in ducks on the surface when exposed to 1-lb changes at slant ranges of 10 to 18 feet, but internal injuries were observed in all birds except at 18 feet(Yelverton et al., 1973).3-372 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsWhile the effects of explosions in the study area on seabirds cannot be quantified, lethal injury to someseabird individuals could occur from the 1,413 explosions that would take place each year (Table 2.2-7)under the No Action Alternative. Many of these explosions would be associated with bombs (465),which have relatively large NEWs and ZOIs. Approximately 26 percent (121) of the bomb explosionswould occur in Air-3B, which is expected to have relatively high seabird concentrations.Navy mitigation measures are expected to reduce, but not eliminate, the potential for seabird mortalityfrom explosions. As discussed in Chapter 5, Navy mitigation measures include, but are not limited to,avoidance of large Sargassum mats where seabirds tend to concentrate. Human activity such as vesselmovement, aircraft overflights, and target setting could cause birds to flee a target area prior to the onsetof an explosion, thus avoiding harm. In addition, birds that are in flight during an explosion would beless susceptible to harm than birds that are on the sea surface or diving underwater during an explosion.On the other hand, seabirds could be attracted to an area to forage if an explosion resulted in a fish kill.This would only be a concern for events that involved multiple explosions in the same area over arelatively long period, such as FIREX with IMPASS events, which involve firing 39 HE 5-inch roundsper event.While some seabird mortality could occur, only a small number of birds would be affected andpopulation-level effects would not be expected. Underwater detonations and HE ordnance use under theNo Action Alternative would not result in significant impacts to populations of migratory birds as definedby MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordance with NEPA, underwaterdetonations and HE ordnance use in territorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. Inaccordance with EO 12114, underwater detonations and HE ordnance use in non-territorial waters wouldnot cause significant harm to birds.Military Expended MaterialsThe Navy uses a variety of military expended materials (MEM) during training exercises conducted in theVACAPES Study Area. The types and quantities of MEM and information regarding fate and transportof these materials in the marine environment are discussed in Section 3.2. Most MEM currently used bythe Navy rapidly sinks to the sea floor, and seabirds would not be exposed to these materials. Seabirdscould ingest or inhale some types of MEM if the materials floated in the air or on the sea surface, orbecame entrained in Sargassum mats at the surface. Specifically: Ordnance-related materials would sink in relatively deep waters, would not present an ingestion risk toseabirds, and would have no effect on birds. Most targets would be recovered after use, while targets such as metal drums rapidly sink after use.Marine markers are non-recoverable pyrotechnic devices used in training to mark a surface position onthe ocean. Targets and marine markers would have no effect on birds. Seabirds could be exposed to some materials such as chaff fibers in the air or at the sea surfacethrough direct contact or inhalation.Based on the dispersion characteristics of chaff, large areas of air space and open water within theVACAPES Study Area would be exposed to chaff, but the chaff concentrations would be very low. Asdescribed in Sections 3.2.3.1 and 3.7.3.3, chaff concentrations would be about 5.4 grams per squarenautical mile, or fewer than 179,000 fibers per square nautical mile or 0.005 fibers per square foot.Seabirds would be exposed to chaff fibers because chaff is used in much of the OPAREA. Severalliterature reviews and controlled experiments have indicated that chaff poses little environmental riskexcept at concentrations substantially higher than those that could reasonably occur from military traininguse (USAF, 1997; Hullar et al., 1999; Arfsten et al., 2002). Birds would occasionally come in directcontact with chaff fibers, but such contact would be inconsequential.3-373 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsChaff is similar in form to fine human hair (USAF, 1997). Because of its flexible nature and softness,external contact with chaff would not adversely affect most wildlife (USAF, 1997), and the fibers wouldquickly blow off or wash off shortly after contact. Inhalation of chaff fibers is not expected to have anyadverse effects on birds because the fibers are too large to be inhaled into the lung. If inhaled, the fiberswould deposit in the nose, mouth, or trachea and either be swallowed or expelled (Hullar et al., 1999).While chaff clouds are undetectable to the human eye (Arfsten et al., 2002), the ability of a bird to see achaff cloud and possibly become disoriented is unknown. Normally, chaff exercises occur above 10,000ft altitude and most are during the day. Birds normally are below 1,000 ft except during migration andthen they primarily migrate at night. There are exceptions to both of these generalizations, but anyoverlap of occurrence of birds and high concentrations of chaff would be rare. Therefore, chaff would notbe expected to disorient birds or effect bird migration.After falling from the air, chaff fibers float on the sea surface for variable periods of time, depending onwave and wind action. Seabirds could unintentionally ingest low concentrations of floating chaff fibers,which consist of about 60 percent silica and 40 percent aluminum by weight.Some fibers would likely become entrained in Sargassum mats and remain at or near the surface forlonger periods of time. The presence of chaff use, large Sargassum mats in the Outer Continental ShelfIBA, and high concentrations of seabirds in the IBA suggest that chaff fiber concentrations and ingestionrates in this area might be relatively higher than in other portions of the VACAPES Study Area.Ingestion of chaff fibers is not expected to cause physical damage to a bird’s digestive tract, based on thesmall size (ranging in lengths of 0.25 to 3 inches with diameters of about 40 micrometers) and flexiblenature of the fibers and the small quantity that could reasonably be ingested. In addition, concentrationsof chaff fibers that could reasonably be ingested are not expected to be toxic to birds. Scheuhammer(1987) reviewed the metabolism and toxicology of aluminum in birds and mammals. Intestinaladsorption of orally ingested aluminum salts was very poor, and the small amount adsorbed was almostcompletely removed from the body by excretion.Dietary aluminum normally has small effects on healthy birds and mammals, and concentrations greaterthan 1,000 mg/kg are needed to induce effects such as impaired bone development, reduced growth, andanemia (Nybo, 1996). A bird weighing approximately 1 kg would need to ingest more than 83,000 chafffibers per day to receive a daily aluminum dose equal to 1,000 mg/kg (based on chaff consisting of 40%aluminum by weight and a 5-ounce chaff canister containing 5 million fibers). As an example, an adultherring gull weighs about 0.8 to 1.2 kg (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2008). It is highly unlikely that abird would ingest a toxic dose of chaff, based on the anticipated environmental concentration of chaff of0.005 fibers per square foot (or 1.8 fibers per square foot for an unrealistic, worst-case scenario of 360chaff cartridges simultaneously released at a single drop point).Other MEM that could be ingested by seabirds includes small, plastic end-caps and pistons associatedwith chaff and self-protection flares (see Section 3.2). The chaff end-cap and piston are round and are1.3 inches in diameter and 0.13 inches thick (Spargo, 2007). This MEM typically sinks in saltwater(Spargo, 2007), which reduces the likelihood of ingestion. However, some of the material could remainat or near the surface if it were to fall directly on a dense Sargassum mat.About 40,300 end-caps and pistons would be released into the marine environment in the VACAPESStudy Area annually, resulting in a low environmental concentration of 0.6 to 2.0 pieces per nm 2 per year.The number of end-caps and pistons that would remain at the surface in Sargassum mats and wouldpotentially be available to seabirds would be an extremely small percentage of the total.Many species of seabirds are known to ingest plastic debris. For example, 21 of 38 seabird species (55%)collected off the coast of North Carolina from 1975 to 1989 contained plastic particles in their digestive3-374 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birdstract (Moser and Lee, 1992). Plastic is often mistaken for prey and the incidence of plastic ingestionappears to be related to a species’ feeding mode and diet. Seabirds that feed by pursuit-diving, surfaceseizing,and dipping tend to ingest plastic, while those that feed by plunging or piracy typically do notingest plastic. Birds of the order Procellariiformes, which include petrels and shearwaters, tend toaccumulate more plastic than do other species. Some seabirds, including gulls and terns, regularlyregurgitate indigestible parts of their food, such as shell and fish bones. However, most procellariiformshave small gizzards and an anatomical constriction between the gizzard and proventriculus that make itdifficult to regurgitate solid material such as plastic (Azzarello and Van Vleet, 1987; Moser and Lee,1992; Pierce et al., 2004).Moser and Lee (1992) found no evidence that seabird health was affected by the presence of plastic, butother studies have documented adverse consequences of plastic ingestion. As summarized by Azzarelloand Van Vleet (1987) and Pierce et al. (2004), documented consequences of plastic ingestion by seabirdsinclude blockage of the intestines and ulceration of the stomach; reduction in the functional volume of thegizzard, leading to reduced digestive capability; and distention of the gizzard, leading to reduced hunger.Studies have found negative correlations between body weight and plastic load, as well as body fat, ameasure of energy reserves, and the number of pieces of plastic in a seabird's stomach. Other possibleconcerns that have been identified include toxicity from plastic additives and toxic contaminants thatcould be adsorbed to the plastic from ambient seawater.Pierce et al. (2004) described two cases where plastic ingestion caused seabird mortality from starvation.A necropsy of an adult northern gannet revealed that a 1.5-inch-diameter plastic bottle cap lodged in thegizzard, obstructed passage of food into the small intestine, and resulted in death from starvation.Dissection of an adult greater shearwater gizzard revealed that a 1.5-inch by 0.5-inch fragment of plasticblocked the pylorus, obstructed the passage of food, and resulted in death from starvation.If a seabird were to ingest a plastic end-cap or piston, the response would vary based on the species andindividual bird. The responses could range from none, to sublethal (reduced energy reserves), to lethal(digestive tract blockage leading to starvation). Ingestion of end-caps and pistons by species thatregularly regurgitate indigestible items would likely have no adverse effects. However, end-caps andpistons are similar in size to the plastic pieces described above that caused digestive tract blockages andeventual starvation. Therefore, ingestion of plastic end-caps and pistons could be lethal to someindividuals of some species of seabirds, such as procellariiforms that have small gizzards and anatomicalconstrictions that make it difficult to regurgitate solid material.Based on available information, it is not possible to accurately estimate actual ingestion rates or responsesof individual birds. However, the number of end-caps or piston ingested by seabirds is expected to bevery low, based on the low concentration (0.6 to 2.0 pieces per nm 2 per year) and the fact that anextremely small percentage of the total would be potentially available to seabirds (that is, those thatlanded on Sargassum mats and remained at the sea surface). Plastic ingestion under the No ActionAlternative would not result in a significant adverse effect on migratory bird populations becausesublethal and lethal effects, if they occurred, would be limited to a few individual birds.In summary, MEM would not result in a significant adverse effect on migratory bird populations asdefined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordance with NEPA,MEM in territorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114,MEM in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to birds.Bermuda PetrelWhile the Bermuda petrel is very rare (worldwide population estimate of 250 birds in 2005), availableinformation suggests that low numbers of foraging birds are likely to occur with some regularity in3-375 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birdsportions of the VACAPES Study Area. The highest potential for this species to occur exists in portions ofW-72 and W-110 along Gulf Stream frontal boundaries. As discussed above for other seabirds, it ispossible that Bermuda petrels would be exposed to various stressors associated with the No ActionAlternative, including vessel movements, aircraft overflights, NEPM, underwater detonations and HEordnance, and MEM.Bermuda Petrel - Vessel MovementsBermuda petrels may often feed at night to avoid predators and capture prey that surfaces to feed onplankton (Brinkley and Humann, 2001). Consequently, this species could be susceptible to interactionswith lighted vessels at night. However, Navy training activities attempt to simulate warlike conditionsand, in an attempt to remain visually disguised, vessels typically do not use large deck lights or strobes.This reduces the potential for attraction and disorientation of nocturnal foraging seabirds. Furthermore,the concentrated food sources that attract seabirds to commercial fishing vessels are not present aroundNavy vessels.The probability of a Bermuda petrel colliding with a Navy vessel is extremely low, based on the lowdensity of birds (a maximum density of much less than 0.05 birds per nm 2 ) and low density of Navyvessels in the study area. Navy mitigation measures (see Chapter 5), which include avoidance of largeSargassum mats where seabirds tend to concentrate, further would reduce the probability of vessel strikes.Vessel movements may affect the Bermuda petrel under the No Action Alternative, but the effects wouldbe discountable because they are extremely unlikely to occur.Bermuda Petrel - Aircraft OverflightsDespite their low density, Bermuda petrels would occasionally be exposed to elevated noise levelsassociated with aircraft overflights for short durations (seconds). Most of the exposures would be fromrelatively high-altitude, fixed-wing aircraft overflights. Exposure to helicopter noise would be less likelybecause most helicopter operations would occur in W-50 and the lower Chesapeake Bay, where Bermudapetrels are not expected to occur.As discussed above for other seabirds, if a Bermuda petrel were to respond to a noise exposure, theresponses would be limited to short-term behavioral or physiological reactions, such as alert response,startle response, and/or temporary increase in heart rate and the general health of individual birds wouldnot be compromised. Noise associated with aircraft overflights may affect the Bermuda petrel, but anyeffects would be insignificant.Bermuda petrels are not expected to be exposed to aircraft strikes, based on the low Bermuda petreldensity and widely dispersed and infrequent nature of training operations. Most fixed-wing aircraftoverflights in the study area occur at altitudes above 5,000 feet, while Bermuda petrels spend most oftheir time near the sea surface. Therefore, the probability of a fixed-wing aircraft striking a Bermudapetrel is extremely low. Most helicopter operations take place in W-50 and the lower Chesapeake Bay,where Bermuda petrels are not expected to occur. Aircraft strikes under the No Action Alternative wouldhave no effect on the Bermuda petrel.Bermuda Petrel - Towed Mine Warfare DevicesTowed mine warfare devices would have no effect on Bermuda petrels under the No Action Alternativebecause use of these systems would be limited to the lower Chesapeake Bay and areas of the AtlanticOcean relatively close to shore where Bermuda petrels are not expected to occur.3-376 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsBermuda Petrel – Mine Warfare Training Area Establishment (Non-explosive Mine Shape Deploymentand Recovery)The No Action Alternative does not include establishment of mine warfare training areas where nonexplosivemine shapes would be deployed. Therefore, no effect on Bermuda petrels would occur.Bermuda Petrel - Non-Explosive Practice MunitionsAs discussed above for other seabirds, Bermuda petrels could be exposed to noise associated withweapons firing. However, only short-term behavioral or physiological responses, such as alert response,startle response, and/or temporary increases in heart rate would be expected and the general health ofindividual birds would not be compromised. Weapons-firing noise may affect the Bermuda petrel underthe No Action Alternative, but the effects would be insignificant.Bermuda petrels are not expected to be exposed to direct NEPM strikes, based on the low density of birdspresent and the locations of these operations. Some of the prime foraging areas for Bermuda petrels arelocated in W-110 and possibly in W-387, where ordnance use is not authorized. Most NEPM would beexpended in R-6606, W-50, Air-1A, and Air-K (Table 2.2-6), where Bermuda petrels are not expected tooccur. Navy mitigation measures (see Chapter 5), which include avoidance of large Sargassum matswhere seabirds tend to concentrate, would further reduce the probability of NEPM strikes. NEPM strikesunder the No Action Alternative would have no effect on the Bermuda petrel.Bermuda Petrel – Underwater Detonations and High-explosive OrdnanceOf the training areas where explosions occur (Table 2.2-7), Bermuda petrels are most likely to be presentin Air-3B, 1C1/2, and portions of W-72, based on proximity to the western frontal boundary of the GulfStream. Bermuda petrels are less likely to occur in the areas where explosions take place (W-50, Air-K,7C/D, and 8C/D).Under the No Action Alternative, 121 HE bomb explosions would occur annually in Air-3B. About fiveor six FIREX with IMPASS events would occur annually in 1C1 and 1C2. While sufficient data are notavailable to calculate ZOIs for seabirds, the ZOIs for HE bomb explosions are expected to be the largest.While the effects of explosions on Bermuda petrels cannot be quantified, the likelihood of an exposure tocause injury appears to be remote, based on the very low density of birds. Other factors that wouldreduce the likelihood of harmful exposure include the Bermuda petrel's foraging habits (that is, feeding onthe surface versus diving for food) and mitigation measures the Navy implements during BOMBEX andFIREX with IMPASS (see Chapter 5).An exposure resulting in a short-term behavioral response would be more likely to occur than an exposurethat caused injury because the ZOI for behavioral effects would be much larger than the ZOI for injury. Ifexposures were to occur, they would most likely be in Air-3B, based on the number of HE bombexplosions, the relatively large ZOIs associated with HE bomb explosions, and the quality of foraginghabitat. Underwater detonations associated with Mine Warfare training would have no effect on theBermuda petrel under Alternative 2 because these exercises would take place in areas where the Bermudapetrel is not expected to occur. The effects of HE ordnance use under Alternative 2 would bediscountable. HE ordnance use under Alternative 2 may affect the Bermuda petrel.Bermuda Petrel – Military Expended MaterialsAs discussed for other seabirds, ordnance-related materials and marine markers would sink in relativelydeep waters and would not present an ingestion risk. Target-related materials would be recovered afteruse or would rapidly sink after use. Therefore, ordnance-related materials, target-related materials, andmarine markers would have no effect on the Bermuda petrel.3-377 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsBermuda petrels could be exposed to chaff fibers, chaff plastic end-caps or pistons, and self-protectionflare end-caps. As discussed above for other seabirds, the effects of direct contact with chaff fibers, andinhalation and ingestion of chaff fibers, would be insignificant.Bermuda petrels feed at the sea surface and could mistake plastic end-caps or pistons entrained inSargassum as prey. This species is a member of the Procellariidae family, which appears to be moresusceptible than other seabird families to digestive tract blockages from plastic. However, the probabilityof a Bermuda petrel ingesting a plastic end-cap or piston is extremely low, based on the low density ofbirds, low concentration of end-caps and pistons (0.6 to 2.0 pieces per nm 2 per year), and fact that anextremely small percentage of the total (that is, only those that landed on Sargassum mats and remained atthe sea surface) would be potentially available for ingestion. Chaff fibers, end-caps, and pistons mayaffect the Bermuda petrel, but the effects would be insignificant or discountable.The No Action Alternative would have no effect on critical habitat because none has been designated forthe Bermuda petrel.Roseate TernRoseate terns are not expected to occur in the VACAPES Study Area except as occasional transientindividuals. Roseate terns would most likely not be exposed to any of the stressors associated with theNo Action Alternative. Consequently, the No Action Alternative would have no effect on the roseatetern. The No Action Alternative would have no effect on roseate tern critical habitat because none hasbeen designated for this species.3.10.3.2 Alternative 1Vessel MovementsVessel movements would increase by approximately 1.4 percent in the VACAPES Study Area underAlternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). These changes would result in increased potential for bird strikes andassociated bird mortalities and injuries to occur compared to No Action Alternative conditions. Eventhough vessel movements would increase about 1.4 percent under Alternative 1, seabirds are not expectedto be harmed by collisions with vessels for the same reasons discussed under the No Action Alternative.If birds were affected by vessel movements under Alternative 1, the number of individuals affected wouldbe small. Navy mitigation measures, which include avoidance of large Sargassum mats where seabirdstend to concentrate, would further reduce the probability of vessel strikes.Vessel movements under Alternative 1 would not have a significant adverse effect on migratory birdpopulations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordancewith NEPA, vessel movements in territorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. Inaccordance with EO 12114, vessel movements in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harmto birds. Effects of Alternative 1 on the federally listed Bermuda petrel and roseate tern are analyzedbelow.Aircraft OverflightsAlternative 1 would include a 4.5 percent increase in fixed-wing aircraft sorties per year and a 94 percentincrease in helicopter sorties per year in the VACAPES Study Area (Table 2.2-5). Most new helicoptersorties would occur over the lower Chesapeake Bay and W-50. The potential for birds to be exposed toelevated noise levels would increase compared to No Action Alternative conditions, particularly in thelower Chesapeake Bay and W-50. The magnitude of individual exposures would not increase, becauseAlternative 1 does not include use of new aircraft that are louder than current equipment. Peak noiselevels generated by the new MH-60R and MH-60S Multi-Mission Helicopters would be similar to thenoise levels generated by the helicopters that they would replace.3-378 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsBased on the increased operations under Alternative 1, more birds could be exposed to noise and/or thenumber of times an individual bird is exposed could increase. Similar to the No Action Alternative, theresponses would be limited to short-term, behavioral or physiological reactions, such as alert response,startle response, and/or temporary increase in heart rate, and the general health of individual birds wouldnot be compromised. As discussed for the No Action Alternative, the presence of dense aggregations ofsea ducks, other seabirds, and migrating landbirds is a potential concern during low-attitude helicopteroperations over the lower Chesapeake Bay. Navy helicopter pilots would avoid large flocks of birds toprotect aircrews and equipment. Exposure during migration is expected to be minimal because mosthelicopter sorties would occur during daylight hours and most migrating birds would cross the lower Bayat night.Birds repeatedly exposed to aircraft noise often become habituated to the noise and do not respondbehaviorally (National Park Service, 1994; Larkin, 1996; Plumpton, 2006). However, habituation seemsunlikely in the study area because of the widely dispersed nature and relative infrequency of Alternative 1operations.Aircraft noise exposures under Alternative 1 would result in negligible effects to individual birds andwould not result in significant adverse effects to migratory bird populations as defined by MBTAregulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordance with NEPA, aircraft noise overterritorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114, aircraft noiseover non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to birds.The changes in aircraft overflights would increase the likelihood of bird/aircraft strikes and associatedbird mortalities and injuries. However, as discussed above for the No Action Alternative, bird/aircraftstrikes are rare in offshore areas and the numbers of bird mortalities that occur Navy-wide areinsignificant from a bird population standpoint. Despite the increases in overflights, negligible changes inbird/aircraft strikes would occur, and the number of birds affected would be small.Aircraft strikes under Alternative 1 would have no significant adverse effect on migratory birdpopulations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordancewith NEPA, aircraft strikes over territorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. Inaccordance with EO 12114, aircraft strikes over non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm tobirds.Towed Mine Warfare DevicesTowed mine warfare device sorties would increase by 75 percent per year under Alternative 1. Similar tothe No Action Alternative, the potential for a towed mine warfare device to strike a bird under Alternative1 would be extremely low because birds would likely see and hear the oncoming helicopter and flee theimmediate area.Use of towed mine warfare devices under Alternative 1 would not have a significant adverse effect onmigratory bird populations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. Inaccordance with NEPA, towed mine warfare device use in territorial waters would have no significantimpact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114, towed mine warfare device use in non-territorial waterswould not cause significant harm to birds.Mine Warfare Training Area Establishment (Non-explosive Mine Shape Deployment andRecovery)A mine warfare training area would be designated in W-50 under Alternative 1 (Figure 2.2-1). Thissection addresses potential effects associated with establishing and maintaining this training area,including non-explosive mine shape deployment and recovery. The effects of conducting training3-379 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birdsexercises in this area would be the same as those analyzed under aircraft overflights and towed minewarfare devices.As discussed in Chapter 2, the mine shape assembly would include a concrete anchor, mooring line (steelcable or chain), and the mine shape. If seabirds were present at the time of mine shape deployment orrecovery, they could be startled by the process and flee the immediate area. However, the effects wouldbe negligible, short-term, and localized.Mine warfare training area establishment would have no significant adverse effect on migratory birdpopulations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordancewith NEPA, mine warfare training area establishment in territorial waters would have no significantimpact on birds. Mine warfare training area establishment would not occur in non-territorial waters underAlternative 1 and, therefore, there would be no harm in accordance with an EO 12114 evaluation.Non-Explosive Practice MunitionsThe amount of NEPM used would increase in the VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 1 (Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-6). These changes would result in increased potential for birds to be exposed to weapons-firingnoise. The potential for bird/NEPM strikes and associated bird mortalities and injuries would alsoincrease. However, the number of birds affected would continue to be small. Navy mitigation measures,which include avoidance of large Sargassum mats where seabirds tend to concentrate, would furtherreduce the probability of ordnance strikes.While a remote possibility would exist that some individuals of some bird species may be directlyimpacted if they were in the target area and at the point of physical impact at the time of ordnancedelivery, NEPM strikes under Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to populations ofmigratory birds as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. Inaccordance with NEPA, NEPM strikes in territorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. Inaccordance with EO 12114, NEPM strikes in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm tobirds.Underwater Detonations and High-explosive OrdnanceThe numbers and locations of explosions that would occur under Alternative 1 would be the same as theNo Action Alternative, except for increases in Hellfire missile and 20-lbs NEW underwater detonations(Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-7). The number of explosions associated with Hellfire missile use would increase from 30 to 60 per yearunder Alternative 1. These explosions would continue to occur at or near the water's surface in Air-Kand W-72A. The number of explosions associated with 20-lbs NEW underwater detonations would increase from12 to 24 in W-50 under Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-7).Consequently, the potential for birds to be exposed to impacts from explosions would increase underAlternative 1. While some seabird mortality could occur, mitigation measures and factors discussed forthe No Action Alternative indicate that a small number of birds would be affected and population-leveleffects would not be expected.Underwater detonations and HE ordnance use under Alternative 1 would not result in significant impactsto populations of migratory birds as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readinessactivities. In accordance with NEPA, underwater detonations and HE ordnance use in territorial waterswould have no significant impact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114, underwater detonations andHE ordnance use in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to birds.3-380 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISMilitary Expended MaterialsChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsThe amount of chaff fibers and plastic end-caps and pistons entering the marine environment wouldincrease in the VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). These changes would result inincreased potential for birds to ingest chaff and plastic end-caps and pistons. As discussed for the NoAction Alternative, several literature reviews and controlled experiments have indicated that chaff poseslittle environmental risk except at concentrations substantially higher than those that could reasonablyoccur from military training use (USAF, 1997; Hullar et al., 1999; Arfsten et al., 2002). It is highlyunlikely that a bird would ingest a toxic dose of chaff, based on the anticipated environmentalconcentration of chaff that would occur with Alternative 1.As discussed for the No Action Alternative, if a seabird were to ingest a plastic end-cap or piston, theresponse would vary, based on the species and individual bird. The responses could range from none, tosublethal (reduced energy reserves), to lethal (digestive tract blockage leading to starvation). Based onavailable information, it is not possible to accurately estimate actual ingestion rates or responses ofindividual birds. However, the change in the number of end-caps or pistons ingested by seabirds wouldbe very low, based on the small change in the low concentration (0.7 to 2.2 pieces per nm 2 per year forAlternative 1 compared to 0.6 to 2.0 pieces per nm 2 per year for the No Action Alternative) and the factthat an extremely small percentage of the total would be potentially available to seabirds (that is, thosethat landed on Sargassum mats and remained at the sea surface). Plastic ingestion under Alternative 1would not result in a significant adverse effect on migratory bird populations because sublethal and lethaleffects, if they occurred, would be limited to a few birds.MEM would not result in a significant adverse effect on migratory bird populations as defined by MBTAregulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordance with NEPA, MEM in territorialwaters would have no significant impact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114, MEM in non-territorialwaters would not cause significant harm to birds.Bermuda PetrelAs discussed above for other seabirds, increases in training operations under Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5)would increase the potential for Bermuda petrels to be exposed to associated stressors. The probability ofa Bermuda petrel being exposed to a vessel collision would continue to be extremely low, based on thesmall increase in vessel operations (1.4% increase in vessel steaming days per year) and the low Bermudapetrel density. Navy protective measures, which include avoidance of large Sargassum mats whereseabirds tend to concentrate, would further reduce the probability of vessel interactions. Vesselmovements may affect the Bermuda petrel under Alternative 1, but the effects would be insignificant ordiscountable.The effects of aircraft overflights under Alternative 1 are expected to be similar to the No ActionAlternative. Fixed-wing aircraft sorties would increase by 10 percent, but the aircraft would continue tooperate at relatively high altitudes. Helicopter sorties would increase by 88 percent, but most helicopteroperations would continue to occur in W-50 and the lower Chesapeake Bay, where Bermuda petrels arenot expected to occur. Aircraft noise under Alternative 1 may affect the Bermuda petrel, but the effectswould be insignificant, such as short-term behavioral responses. Aircraft strikes under Alternative 1would have no effect on the Bermuda petrel because most fixed-wing flights would be at high altitudesand most helicopter operations would take place in areas where this species is not expected to occur.The proposed increase in towed mine warfare device sorties under Alternative 1 would have no effect onthe Bermuda petrel because the sorties would occur in the lower Chesapeake Bay, W-50, and portions ofW-72 and W-386, where this species is not expected to occur.3-381 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsEstablishing the proposed mine warfare training area in W-50 under Alternative 1 would have no effecton the Bermuda petrel because this species is not expected to occur in W-50.The increases in NEPM use under Alternative 1 (Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-6) would not appreciably increaseBermuda petrel exposure to weapons-firing noise or NEPM strikes. Most NEPM would continue to beexpended in R-6606, W-50, Air-1A, and Air-K, where Bermuda petrels are not expected to occur. Navymitigation measures (see Chapter 5), which include avoidance of large Sargassum mats where seabirdstend to concentrate, would further reduce the probability of NEPM strikes. Weapons-firing noise underAlternative 1 may affect the Bermuda petrel, but the effects would be insignificant, such as short-termbehavioral responses. NEPM strikes under Alternative 1 would have no effect on the Bermuda petrelbecause Bermuda petrel density is very low and most NEPM use would be in areas where this species isnot expected to occur.The numbers and locations of explosions that would occur under Alternative 1 would be the same as theNo Action Alternative, except for increases in Hellfire missiles and 20-lbs NEW underwater detonations(Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-7). Twelve additional 20-lbs NEW underwater detonations would take place peryear in W-50, and 23 additional Hellfire missile explosions would take place per year in Air-K. Bermudapetrels are not expected to occur in W-50 or Air-K, and would not be affected by these changes.Seven additional Hellfire missile explosions would occur per year in W-72A(2). Bermuda petrels mayoccur in portions of W-72A(2) along the western frontal boundary of the Gulf Stream. While thepotential for Bermuda petrels to be exposed to impacts from explosions would increase under Alternative1, the probability of exposure would continue to be low, based on the low density of birds. Underwaterdetonations associated with Mine Warfare training would have no effect on the Bermuda petrel underAlternative 1 because these exercises would take place in areas where the Bermuda petrel is not expectedto occur. The effects of HE ordnance use under Alternative 1 would be discountable. HE ordnance useunder Alternative 1 may affect the Bermuda petrel.As described for the No Action Alternative, there would be no effect from ordnance-related materials,target-related materials, or marine markers. The amount of chaff fibers and plastic end-caps and pistonsentering the marine environment would increase in the VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 1(Table 2.2-5). These changes would result in increased potential for Bermuda petrels to ingest chaff,plastic end-caps, and pistons. As discussed for the No Action Alternative, several literature reviews andcontrolled experiments have indicated that chaff would poses little environmental risk except atconcentrations substantially higher than those that could reasonably occur from military training use(USAF, 1997; Hullar et al., 1999; Arfsten et al., 2002). It is highly unlikely that a Bermuda petrel wouldingest a toxic dose of chaff, based on the anticipated environmental concentration of chaff for Alternative1. The probability of a Bermuda petrel ingesting a chaff or flare plastic end-cap or piston would continueto be extremely low, based on the low density of birds, the low concentration of end-caps and pistons(about 0.7 to 2.2 pieces per nm 2 per year), and the fact that an extremely small percentage of the totalwould be potentially available for ingestion (that is, those that landed on Sargassum mats and remained atthe sea surface). Chaff fibers, end-caps, and pistons may affect the Bermuda petrel under Alternative 1,but the effects would be insignificant or discountable.Alternative 1 would have no effect on critical habitat because none has been designated for the Bermudapetrel.Roseate TernRoseate terns are not expected to occur in the VACAPES Study Area except as occasional, transientindividuals. Roseate terns would most likely not be exposed to any of the stressors associated with3-382 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsAlternative 1. Consequently, Alternative 1 would have no effect on the roseate tern. Alternative 1 wouldhave no effect on roseate tern critical habitat because none has been designated for this species.3.10.3.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)Vessel MovementsVessel movements that would occur under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). Therefore, the analysis presented above for Alternative 1 is applicable to Alternative 2.Vessel movements under Alternative 2 would not have a significant adverse effect on migratory birdpopulations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordancewith NEPA, vessel movements in territorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. Inaccordance with EO 12114, vessel movements in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harmto birds. Effects of Alternative 2 on the federally listed Bermuda petrel and roseate tern are analyzedbelow.Aircraft OverflightsAlternative 2 would include a 4.5 percent increase in fixed-wing aircraft sorties per year and a 92 percentincrease in helicopter sorties per year in the VACAPES Study Area (Table 2.2-5). Most new helicoptersorties would occur over the lower Chesapeake Bay and in W-50. As a result, the potential for birds to beexposed to elevated noise levels would increase compared to No Action Alternative conditions,particularly in the lower Chesapeake Bay and W-50. The magnitude of individual exposures would notincrease, because Alternative 2 does not include the use of new aircraft that are louder than currentequipment. Peak noise levels generated by the new MH-60R and MH-60S Multi-Mission Helicopterswould be similar to the noise levels generated by the helicopters that they would replace.Based on the increased number of operations under Alternative 2, more birds could be exposed to noiseand/or the number of times an individual bird was exposed could increase. Similar to the No ActionAlternative, the responses would be limited to short-term behavioral or physiological reactions, such asalert response, startle response, and/or temporary increase in heart rate, and the general health ofindividual birds would not be compromised. As discussed for the No Action Alternative, the presence ofdense aggregations of sea ducks, other seabirds, and migrating landbirds is a potential concern duringlow-attitude helicopter operations over the lower Chesapeake Bay. Navy helicopter pilots would avoidlarge flocks of birds to protect aircrews and equipment. Exposure during migration is expected to beminimal because most helicopter sorties would occur during daylight hours and most migrating birdswould cross the lower Bay at night.Birds repeatedly exposed to aircraft noise often become habituated to the noise and do not respondbehaviorally (National Park Service, 1994; Larkin, 1996; Plumpton, 2006). However, habituation seemsunlikely in the study area because of the widely dispersed nature of the operations and the relativeinfrequency of the operations.Aircraft noise exposures under Alternative 2 would result in negligible effects to individual birds andwould not result in significant adverse effects to migratory bird populations as defined by MBTAregulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordance with NEPA, aircraft noise overterritorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114, aircraft noiseover non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to birds.The changes in aircraft overflights would increase the likelihood of bird/aircraft strikes and associatedbird mortalities and injuries. However, as discussed above for the No Action Alternative, bird/aircraftstrikes are rare in offshore areas and the numbers of bird mortalities that occur Navy-wide are3-383 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birdsinsignificant from a bird population standpoint. Despite the increases in overflights, negligible changes inbird/aircraft strikes would occur, and the number of birds affected would be small.Aircraft strikes under Alternative 2 would have no significant adverse effect on migratory birdpopulations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordancewith NEPA, aircraft strikes over territorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. Inaccordance with EO 12114, aircraft strikes over non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm tobirds.Towed Mine Warfare DevicesTowed mine warfare device sorties would increase by 78 percent per year under Alternative 2. Similar tothe No Action Alternative, the potential for a towed mine warfare device to strike a bird under Alternative2 would be extremely low because birds would likely see and hear the oncoming helicopter and flee theimmediate area.Use of towed mine warfare devices under Alternative 2 would not have a significant adverse effect onmigratory bird populations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. Inaccordance with NEPA, towed mine warfare device use in territorial waters would have no significantimpact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114, towed mine warfare device use in non-territorial waterswould not cause significant harm to birds.Mine Warfare Training Area Establishment (Non-explosive Mine Shape Deployment andRecovery)As discussed in Chapter 2, mine warfare training areas would be designated in W-50 (same as Alternative1), W-72, W-386, and the lower Chesapeake Bay under Alternative 2 (Figures 2.2-1 through 2.2-4). Thissection addresses potential effects associated with establishing and maintaining these training areas,including non-explosive mine shape deployment and recovery. The effects of conducting trainingexercises in these areas would be the same as those analyzed under aircraft overflights, towed minewarfare devices, and underwater detonations and HE ordnance (for W-50 only).As discussed in Chapter 2, the mine shape assembly would include a concrete anchor, mooring line (steelcable or chain), and the mine shape. If seabirds were present at the time of mine shape deployment andrecovery, they could be startled by the process and flee the immediate area. However, the effects wouldbe negligible, short-term, and localized.Mine warfare training area establishment under Alternative 2 would have no significant adverse effect onmigratory bird populations as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. Inaccordance with NEPA, mine warfare training area establishment in territorial waters would have nosignificant impact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114, establishment of mine warfare training areasin non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to birds.Non-explosive Practice MunitionsThe amount of NEPM used in the VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 2 would be the same asAlternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). Therefore, the analysis presented above for Alternative 1 is applicable toAlternative 2.NEPM use under Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to populations of migratory birdsas defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordance with NEPA,NEPM use in territorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114,NEPM use in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to birds.3-384 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISUnderwater Detonations and High-explosive OrdnanceChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsAs summarized in Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-7, underwater detonations and HE ordnance use under Alternative2 would be the same as Alternative 1, with the following exceptions:The number of HE bombs used would decrease from 465 to 20 per year.Use of the MK-103 system in W-50 would result in 50 underwater explosions per year (0.002-lbsNEW).Use of the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) in W-50 would result in 30 underwaterexplosions per year (3.24-lbs NEW).As discussed for the No Action Alternative, HE bombs have higher NEWs and ZOIs compared to otherHE ordnance used in the VACAPES OPAREA. Consequently, the potential for birds to be exposed toimpacts from explosions under Alternative 2 would be substantially lower than in the No ActionAlternative, based on the reduction in HE bomb use. Under Alternative 2, HE bombs would no longer beused in Air-3B, which supports relatively high numbers of pelagic seabirds, based on its proximity to thewestern frontal boundary of the Gulf Stream and Outer Continental Shelf IBA.The probability of birds being exposed to impacts from explosions associated with the MK-103 andAMNS Mine Warfare devices in W-50 would be extremely low. Prior to detonation, birds would likelyflee the immediate area in response to disturbances associated the mine warfare devices being towedthrough the water by helicopters. The small NEW of the charges, the fact that these explosions wouldoccur in the water column, and the low numbers of detonations (total of 80 per year) would further reducethe likelihood of birds being exposed to impacts from these explosions.While some seabird mortality could occur under Alternative 2, the above analysis indicates that a smallnumber of birds would be affected and that population level effects would not be expected. Overall, theimpacts from underwater detonations and HE ordnance use for Alternative 2 would be substantially lowerthan the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 based on the reduction in HE bomb use. Underwaterdetonations and HE ordnance use under Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts topopulations of migratory birds as defined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities.In accordance with NEPA, underwater detonations and HE ordnance use in territorial waters would haveno significant impact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114, underwater detonations and HE ordnanceuse in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to birds.Military Expended MaterialsThe amount of MEM entering the marine environment under Alternative 2 would be the same asAlternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). Therefore, the analysis presented above for Alternative 1 is applicable toAlternative 2.MEM under Alternative 2 would not result in a significant adverse effect on migratory bird populations asdefined by MBTA regulations applicable to military readiness activities. In accordance with NEPA,MEM in territorial waters would have no significant impact on birds. In accordance with EO 12114,MEM in non-territorial waters would not cause significant harm to birds.Bermuda PetrelVessel movements that would occur under Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). Therefore, the analysis presented above for Alternative 1 is applicable to Alternative 2. Vesselmovements may affect the Bermuda petrel under Alternative 2, but the effects would be insignificant ordiscountable.The effects of aircraft overflights under Alternative 2 are expected to be similar to the No ActionAlternative. Fixed-wing aircraft sorties would increase by 4.5 percent, but the aircraft would continue to3-385 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birdsoperate at relatively high altitudes. Helicopter sorties would increase by 92 percent, but most helicopteroperations would continue to occur in W-50 and the lower Chesapeake Bay, where Bermuda petrels arenot expected to occur. Aircraft noise under Alternative 2 may affect the Bermuda petrel, but the effectswould be insignificant, such as short-term behavioral responses. Aircraft strikes under Alternative 2would have no effect on the Bermuda petrel because most fixed-wing flights would be at high altitudesand most helicopter operations would take place in areas where this species is not expected to occur.The proposed increase in towed mine warfare device sorties under Alternative 2 would have no effect onthe Bermuda petrel because the sorties would occur in the lower Chesapeake Bay, W-50, and portions ofW-72 and W-386 where this species is not expected to occur.The Bermuda petrel is not expected to occur in areas where the proposed mine warfare training areaswould be established under Alternative 2 (lower Chesapeake Bay, W-50, and portions of W-72 and W-386). Therefore, establishing the mine warfare training areas under Alternative 2 would have no effect onthe Bermuda petrel.The amount of NEPM used in the VACAPES Study Area under Alternative 2 would be the same asAlternative 1 (Table 2.2-5). Therefore, the analysis presented above for Alternative 1 is applicable toAlternative 2.Weapons-firing noise under Alternative 2 may affect the Bermuda petrel, but the effects would beinsignificant, primarily consisting of short-term behavioral responses. NEPM strikes under Alternative 2would have no effect on the Bermuda petrel because Bermuda petrel density is very low and most NEPMuse would be in areas where this species is not expected to occur.The number of HE bombs used in the study area would decrease under Alternative 2 (Tables 2.2-5 and2.2-7). HE bombs would no longer be used in Air-3B, an area where the Bermuda petrel is expected tooccur. Explosions associated with MK-103 and AMNS operations under Alternative 2 would take placein W-50, where the Bermuda petrel is not expected to occur. The probability of Bermuda petrels beingexposed to impacts from explosions would be extremely low under Alternative 2 and would decreaserelative to the No Action Alternative. Underwater detonations associated with Mine Warfare trainingwould have no effect on the Bermuda petrel under Alternative 2 because these exercises would take placein areas where the Bermuda petrel is not expected to occur. The effects of HE ordnance use underAlternative 2 would be discountable. HE ordnance use under Alternative 2 may affect the Bermudapetrel.The amount of MEM entering the marine environment under Alternative 2 would be the same asAlternative 1. Therefore, the analysis presented above for Alternative 1 is applicable to Alternative 2.Chaff fibers, end-caps, and pistons may affect the Bermuda petrel under Alternative 2, but the effectswould be insignificant or discountable.Alternative 2 would have no effect on critical habitat because none has been designated for the Bermudapetrel.Roseate TernRoseate terns are not expected to occur in the VACAPES Study Area except as occasional transientindividuals. Roseate terns would most likely not be exposed to any associated with Alternative 2.Consequently, Alternative 2 would have no effect on the roseate tern. Alternative 2 would have no effecton roseate tern critical habitat, because none has been designated for this species.3.10.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThe analysis presented above indicates that the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2would not result in unavoidable significant adverse effects to seabirds or migratory birds.3-386 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory Birds3.10.5 Summary of Environmental Effects3.10.5.1 Endangered Species ActTable 3.10-3 summarizes the Navy’s determinations of effect for the No Action Alternative, Alternative1, and Alternative 2 (the Preferred Alternative) for federally listed birds that potentially occur in theVACAPES Study Area. The alternatives may affect the Bermuda petrel and would have no effect on theroseate tern. The study area does not contain designated critical habitat for any listed species.Consequently, the alternatives would have no effect on critical habitat. The Navy has completed informalconsultation with the USFWS in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA. In a letter dated October 7, 2008(Appendix C), the USFWS concurred with the Navy's determination that Alternative 2 (the PreferredAlternative) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Bermuda petrel and would have no effecton the roseate tern.3.10.5.2 Migratory Bird Treaty ActAs discussed in the analyses presented throughout Section 3.10.3 and summarized in Table 3.10-4, the NoAction Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would not diminish the capacity of a population ofany migratory bird species to maintain genetic diversity, reproduce, or function effectively in its nativeecosystem. The proposed action would not have a significant adverse effect on migratory birdpopulations. As a result and in accordance with 50 CFR Part 21, the Navy is not required confer with theUSFWS on the development and implementation of conservation measures to minimize or mitigateadverse effects to migratory birds that are not listed under the ESA.3.10.5.3 National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 12114As summarized in Table 3.10-4, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would haveno significant impact on seabirds and migratory birds in territorial waters. Furthermore, the No ActionAlternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would not cause significant harm to seabirds and migratorybirds in non-territorial waters.3-387 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsTABLE 3.10-3SUMMARY OF THE NAVY’S DETERMINATION OF EFFECT FOR FEDERALLY LISTEDBIRDS POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA FOR ALLALTERNATIVESStressor Bermuda Petrel Roseate TernVessel movementsVessel disturbance May affect No effectVessel strikes May affect No effectAircraft overflightsAircraft disturbance May affect No effectAircraft strikes No effect No effectTowed mine warfare devicesTowed device strikes No effect No effectMine warfare training area establishmentNon-explosive mine shape deployment and recovery No effect No effectNon-explosive practice munitionsWeapons-firing disturbance May affect No effectNon-explosive practice munitions strikes No effect No effectUnderwater detonations and high-explosive ordnanceUnderwater detonations No effect No effectHigh-explosive ordnance May affect No effectMilitary expended materialsOrdnance-related materials No effect No effectTarget-related materials No effect No effectChaff May affect No effectSelf-protection flares May affect No effectMarine markers No effect No effectCritical habitatCritical habitat No effect No effect3-388 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsTABLE 3.10-4SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON SEABIRDSAND MIGRATORY BIRDS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREASummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative andStressorNo ActionVessel movementsAircraft overflightsTowed mine warfaredevicesNon-Explosive MineShape Deployment/RecoveryNon-explosive practicemunitionsUnderwaterdetonations and highexplosiveordnanceMilitary expendedmaterialsImpact conclusionAlternative 1Vessel movementsNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)Short-term behavioral responses tovessels and extremely low potential forinjury or mortality from strikes. No longtermpopulation-level effects.Short-term behavioral responses tooverflights, primarily involvinghelicopters. Extremely low potential forinjury or mortality from strikes. No longtermpopulation-level effects.Extremely low potential for towed devicestrikes. No long-term population-leveleffects.No effect.Short-term behavioral responses to firingnoise. Extremely low potential for injuryor mortality from strikes. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Short-term behavioral responses toexplosion noise. Potential for a smallnumber of injuries or mortalities in theimmediate vicinity of an explosion. Nolong-term population-level effects.No effects associated with ordnancerelated materials, targets, or marinemarkers. Extremely low potential forsublethal or lethal effects from ingestionof chaff or flare end-caps or pistons. Nolong-term population-level effects.No significant impact to seabirds andmigratory birds.Short-term behavioral responses tovessels and extremely low potential forinjury or mortality from strikes. Slightincrease compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Short-term behavioral responses tovessels and extremely low potential forinjury or mortality from strikes. No longtermpopulation-level effects.Short-term behavioral responses tooverflights. Extremely low potential forinjury or mortality from strikes. No longtermpopulation-level effects.Extremely low potential for towed devicestrikes. No long-term population-leveleffects.No effect.Short-term behavioral responses to firingnoise. Extremely low potential for injuryor mortality from strikes. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Short-term behavioral responses toexplosion noise. Potential for a smallnumber of injuries or mortalities in theimmediate vicinity of an explosion. Nolong-term population-level effects.No effects associated with ordnancerelated materials, targets, or marinemarkers. Extremely low potential forsublethal or lethal effects from ingestionof chaff or flare end-caps or pistons. Nolong-term population-level effects.No significant harm to seabirds andmigratory birds.Short-term behavioral responses tovessels and extremely low potential forinjury or mortality from strikes. Slightincrease compared to No Actionalternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.3-389 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsTABLE 3.10-4SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON SEABIRDSAND MIGRATORY BIRDS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA(Continued)Summary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative andStressorAircraft overflightsTowed mine warfaredevicesNon-Explosive MineShape Deployment/RecoveryNon-explosive practicemunitionsUnderwaterdetonations and highexplosiveordnanceMilitary expendedmaterialsImpact conclusionAlternative 2Vessel movementsNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)Short-term behavioral responses tooverflights, primarily involvinghelicopters. Extremely low potential forinjury or mortality from strikes. Slightincrease compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.Extremely low potential for towed devicestrikes. Slight increase compared to NoAction Alternative. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Minor, short-term, localized disturbancesassociated with non-explosive mine shapedeployment and recovery. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Short-term behavioral responses to firingnoise. Extremely low potential for injuryor mortality from strikes. Slight increasecompared to No Action Alternative. Nolong-term population-level effects.Short-term behavioral responses toexplosion noise. Potential for a smallnumber of injuries or mortalities in theimmediate vicinity of an explosion.Slight increase compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.No effects associated with ordnancerelatedmaterials, targets, or marinemarkers. Extremely low potential forsublethal or lethal effects from ingestionof chaff or flare end-caps or pistons.Slight increase compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.No significant impact to seabirds andmigratory birds.Short-term behavioral responses tovessels and extremely low potential forinjury or mortality from strikes. Slightincrease compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Short-term behavioral responses tooverflights. Extremely low potential forinjury or mortality from strikes. Slightincrease compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.Extremely low potential for towed devicestrikes. Slight increase compared to NoAction Alternative. No long-termpopulation-level effects.No effect.Short-term behavioral responses to firingnoise. Extremely low potential for injuryor mortality from strikes. Slight increasecompared to No Action Alternative. Nolong-term population-level effects.Short-term behavioral responses toexplosion noise. Potential for a smallnumber of injuries or mortalities in theimmediate vicinity of an explosion.Slight increase compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.No effects associated with ordnancerelatedmaterials, targets, or marinemarkers. Extremely low potential forsublethal or lethal effects from ingestionof chaff or flare end-caps or pistons.Slight increase compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.No significant harm to seabirds andmigratory birds.Short-term behavioral responses tovessels and extremely low potential forinjury or mortality from collisions. Slightincrease compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.3-390 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.10 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsTABLE 3.10-4SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON SEABIRDSAND MIGRATORY BIRDS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA(Continued)Summary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative andStressorAircraft overflightsTowed mine warfaredevicesNon-Explosive MineShape Deployment/RecoveryNon-explosive practicemunitionsUnderwaterdetonations and highexplosiveordnanceMilitary expendedmaterialsImpact conclusionNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)Short-term behavioral responses tooverflights, primarily involvinghelicopters. Extremely low potential forinjury or mortality from strikes. Slightincrease compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.Extremely low potential for towed devicestrikes. Slight increase compared to NoAction Alternative. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Minor, short-term, localized disturbancesassociated with non-explosive mine shapedeployment and recovery. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Short-term behavioral responses to firingnoise. Extremely low potential for injuryor mortality from strikes. Slight increasecompared to No Action Alternative. Nolong-term population-level effects.Short-term behavioral responses toexplosion noise. Potential for a smallnumber of injuries or mortalities in theimmediate vicinity of an explosion.Slight increase compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.No effects associated with ordnancerelatedmaterials, targets, or marinemarkers. Extremely low potential forsublethal or lethal effects from ingestionof chaff or flare end-caps or pistons.Slight increase compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.No significant impact to seabirds andmigratory birds.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Short-term behavioral responses tooverflights. Extremely low potential forinjury or mortality from strikes. Slightincrease compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.Extremely low potential for towed devicestrikes. Slight increase compared to NoAction Alternative. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Minor, short-term, localized disturbancesassociated with non-explosive mine shapedeployment and recovery. No long-termpopulation-level effects.Short-term behavioral responses to firingnoise. Extremely low potential for injuryor mortality from strikes. Slight increasecompared to No Action Alternative. Nolong-term population-level effects.Short-term behavioral responses toexplosion noise. Potential for a smallnumber of injuries or mortalities in theimmediate vicinity of an explosion.Substantial decrease in impacts associatedwith HE bomb use compared to NoAction Alternative. No long-termpopulation-level effects.No effects associated with ordnancerelatedmaterials, targets, or marinemarkers. Extremely low potential forsublethal or lethal effects from ingestionof chaff or flare end-caps or pistons.Slight increase compared to No ActionAlternative. No long-term populationleveleffects.No significant harm to seabirds andmigratory birds.3-391 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.11 LAND USEChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.11 Land Use3.11.1 Introduction and MethodsLand use is the classification of either natural or human-modified activities occurring at a given location.As detailed in Section 1.3.1, no inland ranges or associated airspace will be analyzed in thisEnvironmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS). In offshoresettings, land use is typically limited to public access and safety issues, including potential hazardsinherent in flight operations, weapons firing, mine laying, and underwater demolition. It is the policy ofthe Navy to observe every possible precaution in the planning and execution of all operations that occuronshore or offshore to prevent injury to people or damage to property (DoN, 2006).3.11.1.1 Assessment Methods and Data UsedBathymetry data for classification of offshore areas were obtained from the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA). Historical naval training and environmental studies contributed tothe development of the land use section.3.11.1.2 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsNo potential stressors from the proposed activities on land use have been identified. Land-basedinstallations and ranges are managed by Commander Naval Installations Command (CNIC). CNIC isresponsible for preparing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation for its installationswhen necessary. Therefore, installations are not included in the analysis for this EIS/OEIS. OtherService land ranges are responsible for environmental compliance and analysis of their own ranges and,therefore, are not included in this EIS/OEIS.As described in Section 1.5, the study area for this EIS/OEIS is the Virginia Capes (VACAPES)operating area (OPAREA), lower Chesapeake Bay, associated special use airspace (SUA), and areaextending 3 nautical miles (nm) from mean high tide seaward. Because the VACAPES OPAREA begins3 nm off the coast, Navy training would not impact lands that would be affected by the Submerged LandsAct (SLA) 13 .3.11.2 Affected EnvironmentNavy training activities occur both nearshore and offshore. Offshore areas, defined by NOAA, include allrange activities that occur outside the 20-fathom 14 (equal to 120 feet or 37 meters) curve on the Atlanticcoast. This area is shown in Figure 3.11-1 (NOAA, 2000).Offshore activities are military, commercial, and recreational. Although the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) has established warning areas for military operations, virtually all airspace andseaspace is available for co-use most of the time. Only potentially dangerous activities are exclusive use.Exclusive-use times are scheduled and broadcast through notices-to-mariners (NOTMAR), issued by theU.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and notices-to-airmen (NOTAM), issued by the FAA (DoN, 2006).13 The Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. §§1301-1315[2002]) was developed by Congress in an attempt to return thetitle of submerged lands to the state and promote the exploration and development of petroleum deposits in coastalwaters. It effectively grants title to the natural resources located within the first 3 miles of a state’s coastalsubmerged lands.14 “A fathom is a unit of length equal to 6 feet (1.83 meters). It is used principally in the measurement andspecification of marine depths” (www.thefreedictionary.com/fathom).3-392 March 2009

76°W75°W74°W73°W39°ND. C.ANNAPOLISMilfordWildwood39°NLANDCambridgeAtlantic Test Range ComplexR4007NAS Patuxent RiverLexington ParkR4005R4002R4006Princess AnneBloodsworth IslandDELAWARESeafordMARYLANDLewesRehoboth BeachOcean City47A44A44C44B44D47B45A45C48A45B45D48B4649A49B50Atlantic CityOPAREA38°NCrisfield38°NR4008R6609NASAWallops Island12A2B3A3B4AVACAPES OPAREAW-3864B5A5B2C 2D 3C3D4C4D5C5DVIRGINIACape Charles3 nm State Limit6it7A12 nm Territorial Lim7C7B7D8A8C8B8D9A9C9B9D10A10C10B10D11A11C11B11D12A12B37°N36°NNEWPORTNEWSNS NorfolkR5302CR5314 A-JNORFOLKPORTSMOUTHJR5301NAS OceanaNORTH CAROLINAR5302BNAB Little CreekDam NeckR6606R5302AHD - Dare CountyAF TargetVIRGINIABEACHR5302GHarvey PointCAW50ABW50BW50CF13W-72A(1)20Nags HeadE - Dare CountyNavy TargetStumpy PtMOA1A11A32A12A33A13A327PamlicoMOA B1A2W-72A(2)2A22A43A23A41A41B11B32B12B33B13B31B21B42B22B43B21C11C32C12C33C11C21C42C2VACAPES OPAREA2C43C21D11D32D1W-72B2D3W-387A/BW-387A: SFC-FL240W-387B: FL240-UNL1D21D42D22D41E11E32E12E31E21E42E22E41F11F32F11F21F42F237°N36°NStumpyPointPamlicoMOA AR5313CR5313AR5313BR5313D3334A3B43C33D13D23E12F32F435°NdCityPiney Island3 nm State Limitit12 nm Territorial Lim34B39W-11040A40C40B3C440D3D33D43E33E23E435°N43Cherry PointOPAREAATLANTICOCEAN34°N34°N76°W75°W74°W73°WWVPAMDDENJLegendVACAPES OPAREASurface GridWarningArea(W)Restricted Airspace (R-)Figure 3.11-1VA3nmStateLimitMilitary Operating Area (MOA)SCNC12 nm Territorial Limit20 Fathom IsobathNote:VACAPES OPAREA surface grid coordinates reference:FACSFAC VACAPES Instruction 3120.1J, (January 2001).0 12.5 25 50 75 100Nautical Miles20 Fathom IsobathVACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-393

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.11 Land UseThe Regional Shore Installation Management Program (RSIP) for the Mid-Atlantic Region presents anoverview of shore infrastructure and assesses present facility needs. It also identifies future needs thatarise from Navy operational or homeporting changes. The current RSIP does not identify any anticipatedchanges in shore installation requirements that would be reflected in the use of the VACAPES RangeComplex.3.11.2.1 Real Estate Use and AgreementsPalmetto Point. The Navy and state of North Carolina (1965) signed a special use agreement inMarch 1965 that assigned the “…right to use, construct, operate, maintain, replace, and remove an aircrafttarget facility with three appurtenant markers, such facility and markers to be constructed within theconfines of four (4) certain areas of submerged lands in Albemarle Sound, Tyrrell County, NorthCarolina.” This special use agreement provides for the target areas only. The corresponding surfacedanger zone is authorized by the Army in 33 CFR 334.410 (DoN, 2006).In August 1965, the Navy and Socony Mobil Oil Company entered into a subordination agreement thatsubordinates the company’s interests in the rights to the submerged lands granted to the Navy by the stateof North Carolina. The company did, however, “…reserve the right and privilege of mining, exploring,operating, and producing minerals there by slant drilling or other means but without entering upon thesaid submerged lands or installing thereon any equipment or other facilities” (DoN, 2006).Stumpy Point. The Navy and State of North Carolina (1959) entered into a use agreement inJanuary 1959 that granted the Navy “…the right, license, and permission to use those certain areas ofsubmerged lands [in Pamlico Sound] … for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a targetfacility together with its components.” This use agreement provides for the target areas only. Thecorresponding surface danger zone is authorized by the Army in 33 CFR 334.410 (DoN, 2006).Palmetto and Stumpy Point. In October 1997, the Navy received a letter from the North CarolinaDepartment of Natural Resources (1997) regarding four active water-based targets. The letter called intoquestion the validity of the existing use agreements, stating that “…the two existing agreementsapparently do not encompass all the submerged lands being utilized and/or contain provisions ofquestionable legal value.” The letter further states that “…the State [of North Carolina] is interested inrevisiting these three-decade old agreements…,” and “…insuring the proper management of itssubmerged lands and clarifying the rights and responsibilities of both parties.”In response to this letter, Navy personnel attended several meetings with the state regarding the waterbasedtargets. However, no formal response has been filed by the Navy. State interest in this issue hassubsided in recent years (DoN, 2006). These water targets are not included in the VACAPES Study Areaor included in this EIS/OEIS.3.11.3 Environmental Consequences3.11.3.1 No Action AlternativeNone of the No Action Alternative offshore events would be associated with land encroachment, landforms, or soil. Land-based modes of transportation and utility systems would not be associated withoffshore events. Additionally, the scenic quality of the offshore area would not be affected by No ActionAlternative activities. No changes to existing real estate use or agreements would result fromimplementation of the No Action Alternative. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have noimpact under NEPA on land use and would cause no harm on land use under EO 12114.3.11.3.2 Alternative 1Alternative 1 would increase operational training, expand warfare missions, accommodate force structurechanges, and enhance range complex capabilities. Proposed increases to commercial air services (CAS),3-394 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.11 Land Usethe introduction of maritime security surface strike group (SSG) training, MH-60R/S training, and organicmine countermeasures (OMCM) to the mine countermeasures mission (MCM) would not be associatedwith land encroachment, land forms, or soil. Land-based modes of transportation and utility systemswould not be associated with offshore events. Additionally, the scenic quality of the offshore area wouldnot be affected by proposed activities. No changes to existing real estate use or agreements would resultfrom the implementation of Alternative 1. Therefore, the proposed activities associated with Alternative1 would have no impact on land use and would cause no harm on land use under EO 12114 and wouldcause no harm on land use under EO 12114.3.11.3.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)Alternative 2 would increase operational training, expand warfare missions, accommodate force structurechanges, and enhance range complex capabilities beyond that proposed for Alternative 1. Proposedincreases to CAS, the introduction of maritime security SSG training, MH-60R/S training, and OMCMwould not be associated with land encroachment, land forms, or soil. The decrease in HE explosive bombuse in the VACAPES Study Area would not have any effect on land use compared to the No ActionAlternative or Alternative 1. Land-based modes of transportation and utility systems would not beassociated with offshore events. Additionally, the scenic quality of the offshore area would not beaffected by proposed activities. No changes to existing real estate use or agreements would result fromthe implementation of Alternative 2. Therefore, the proposed activities associated with Alternative 2would have no impact on land use and would cause no harm on land use under EO 12114.Coastal Zone Management Consistency. In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act, theNavy will be submitting a statement and supporting documentation to Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, andNorth Carolina indicating that the proposed action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable withthe state’s coastal zone enforceable policies. In the Final EIS/OEIS,Appendix G will include federalconsistency determinations to each relevant state agency.3.11.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThere would not be any unavoidable significant environmental effects as a result of implementation of theNo Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2.3.11.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)Table 3.11-1 summarizes the environmental effects of the alternatives on land use in the VACAPESRange Complex study area. There are no aspects of the proposed actions that are likely to act as stressorsto land use; thus there would not be any NEPA or EO 12114 effects on land use. Proposed actions wouldhave no effect on land use in territorial waters. In non-territorial waters, there would be no harm to landuse under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2.3-395 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.11 Land UseTABLE 3.11-1SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTSOF THE ALTERNATIVES ON LAND USE IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREAAlternative andStressorNo ActionAlternativeNo stressors wereidentified for land use.Impact conclusionAlternative 1No stressors wereidentified for land use.Impact conclusionAlternative 2No stressors wereidentified for land use.Impact conclusionNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)No effects on land encroachment, landforms, or soil; transportation or utilitysystems; scenic quality of the offshore area;or real estate use or agreements.Implementation of the No ActionAlternative would have no impact on landuse on U.S. territory.No effects on land encroachment, landforms, or soil; transportation or utilitysystems; scenic quality of the offshore area;or real estate use or agreements.Implementation of Alternative 1 wouldhave no impact on land use on U.S.territory.No effects on land encroachment, landforms, or soil; transportation or utilitysystems; scenic quality of the offshore area;or real estate use or agreements.Implementation of Alternative 2 wouldhave no impact on land use on U.S.territory.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)In non-territorial waters, there would be noharm to land use.In non-territorial waters, there would be noharm to land use.In non-territorial waters, there would be noharm to land use.In non-territorial waters, there would be noharm to land use.In non-territorial waters, there would be noharm to land use.In non-territorial waters, there would be noharm to land use.3-396 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.12 CULTURAL RESOURCESChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.12 Cultural Resources3.12.1 Introduction and MethodsCultural resources include prehistoric and historic sites, structures, objects, landscapes, ethnographicresources, and other physical evidence of human activity considered important to a culture, subculture, orcommunity for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. Cultural resources are typicallydiscussed in terms of archaeological sites, including both prehistoric and historical occupations,architectural resources, and locations of concern to Native American groups, including TraditionalCultural Properties. There is a potential for prehistoric and historic cultural resources to occur within theVACAPES Study Area, which was defined in Section 1.5. Underwater prehistoric archeological sitesmay be present at depths of less than 300 feet from Paleo-Indian habitation during the last ice age.However, such sites probably would be buried under accumulated sediments. As a result, the onlycultural resources likely to occur in the entirely offshore study area would be historic shipwrecks, whichare classified as archeological resources. Because of mechanical, chemical, and biological erosion anddecay, older shipwrecks probably are represented only by non-organic materials, such as metal and ballaststones, and are likely covered by sediments. No architectural resources occur in the Study Area and nosites associated with federally recognized American Indian tribes were identified for this project. Forpurposes of this document, shipwrecks are the only cultural resources considered in this assessment.Procedures for the identification, evaluation, and treatment of cultural resources are contained in a seriesof federal and state laws and regulations and agency guidelines. Archaeological, architectural, and NativeAmerican resources are protected by a variety of laws and their implementing regulations: the NationalHistoric Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended in 2000; the Archeological and HistoricPreservation Act of 1974; the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979; the American IndianReligious Freedom Act of 1978; the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990;the Submerged Lands Act of 1953; the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987; the Sunken Military CraftAct; and OPNAVINST 5090.1B. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation further guides treatmentof archaeological and architectural resources through the regulations, Protection of Historic Properties (36CFR 800). Historic properties, as defined by the NHPA, represent the subset of cultural resources listedon, or are eligible for, inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Additionalregulations and guidelines for shipwrecks include 10 USC 113, Title XIV for the Sunken Military CraftAct; the Abandoned Shipwreck Guidelines prepared by the National Park Service (NPS, 2007); and theGuidelines for Archaeological Research Permit Applications on Ship and Aircraft Wrecks under theJurisdiction of the Department of the Navy (36 CFR 4, Part 767) overseen by the Naval Historical Center.Consultation with the Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia State Historic PreservationOffices (SHPO); American Indian tribes; and with the public and state and federal agencies as required bySection 106 of the NHPA and by government-to-government consultation required by EO 13007, will beaccomplished as part of the NEPA process for this EIS/OEIS.3.12.1.1 Assessment Methods and Data UsedAssessment MethodsThis draft EIS/OEIS evaluates effects of the alternatives on significant cultural resources, which arehistoric properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).(The term “historic properties” is used for NRHP-eligible or -listed prehistoric, historic, or traditionalcultural resources.) Cultural resources that have not been formally evaluated are considered potentiallyeligible (i.e. a Consensus Determination in consultation with the SHPO) and are afforded the sameregulatory consideration as listed properties.3-397 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.12 Cultural ResourcesHistoric properties must meet one or more of the NRHP criteria defined at 36 CFR 60.4. That is,properties must: Be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of Americanhistory; Be associated with the lives of persons significant in the American past; Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent thework of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entitywhose components may lack individual distinction; or Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.A historic property also must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,feeling, and association to qualify for the NRHP.Very few of the shipwrecks within the VACAPES Study Area have been fully documented or evaluatedfor their NRHP significance. Therefore, in this EIS/OEIS, all unevaluated shipwrecks are consideredpotentially eligible for the NRHP.Data UsedInformation on the area’s historic shipwrecks was obtained from: The states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina; Maps and data that are available on the Internet; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Internet-based Automated Wreckand Obstruction Information System ; and Published sources, as cited.Information on underwater archaeological resources obtained from the respective SHPOs is substantiallyrefined and locations have been verified. This information is specifically excluded from the Freedom ofInformation Act in accordance with Section 304 of the NHPA. Numbers of shipwrecks used in thisEIS/OEIS are estimates compiled from information obtained from these sources. No comprehensiveunderwater surveys have been completed for the area of potential impact, and data changes are madeyearly as additional discoveries are made. When the Navy conducts analysis of these resources in relationto Navy operations and potential mitigation measures, public disclosure of these sites will not occurunless permission is expressly given. Locations of identified shipwrecks are shown in Figures 3.12-1 and3.12-2 for the VACAPES Range Complex and Chesapeake Bay area, respectively.3.12.1.2 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsAspects of the alternatives that are likely to act as stressors to cultural resources were identified byanalyzing the warfare areas, operations, and specific activities included in the alternatives. Table 3.12-1identifies the operations that could affect cultural resources. These will be carried forward for detailedanalysis in this EIS/OEIS.3.12.2 Affected EnvironmentThousands of submerged cultural resources, primarily shipwrecks, are located along the south Atlanticcontinental shelf. Early history of the coastal areas of the individual states (Delaware, Maryland,Virginia, and North Carolina) is closely linked to maritime activities because colonial settlement andcommerce in these states were made possible by shipping. Shipwrecks occurred in these areas throughoutthe historic period, which began with European exploration of the area during the early 16th century andcontinued until 1960. (Unless they are of extraordinary significance, resources are not eligible for listingin the NRHP until they are at least 50 years old.)3-398 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.12 Cultural ResourcesMost of the approximately 525 shipwrecks within the VACAPES Study Area are along the NorthCarolina coast. Over the past four centuries, thousands of ships were wrecked along these coasts, earningthese waters the nickname “The Graveyard of the Atlantic.” Shipwrecks are not randomly located, butoften are associated with prominent capes such as Cape Hatteras, Cape Lookout, and Cape Fear, and theattendant shoals such as Diamond, Lookout, and Frying Pan. Numerous wrecks are concentrated in theCape Hatteras area, where the intersection of cold northern currents and the northbound Gulf Streamforms shoals and submerged, shifting sandbars that, in combination with powerful currents, treacherousseas, and wind, create hazards for mariners.DelawareShipwrecks have been occurring off the Delaware coast since shortly after Italian mariners first voyagedalong the eastern coast of North America in 1524. However, there is limited information on shipwrecksoff this state because of the difficulty in correlating individual, historically documented shipping losseswith known shipwreck locations. Fewer than 1 percent of the shipwrecks that occurred in the state’swaters have been positively identified (Koski-Karell, 1995). Many of the shipwrecks recorded by diverswere caused by collisions between vessels. In the colonial period, the mouth of Delaware Bay wasknown as the most treacherous entry into the colonies because of the many, rapidly shifting shoals, andabout half the known shipwrecks occur in this vicinity. Other wrecks are spread along the Atlantic Coastof Delaware.TABLE 3.12-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES a/Warfare Area and OperationTraining AreasMine WarfareDeployment and RecoveryTowed MineWarfare DevicesNon-explosivePractice MunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh-explosive OrdnanceMilitaryExpended MaterialsMine Warfare (MIW)Mine countermeasures exercise (MCM) Lower Chesapeake Bay Mine countermeasures exercise (MCM)W-50A/C,W-386, W-72 Mine neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing exercise (air-to-surface) (at sea)Missile exercise (MISSILEX) (air-tosurface)Gunnery exercise (GUNEX) (air-tosurface)W-386 (Air-K), W-72A(Air-3B), W-72A/B W-386 (Air-K), W-72A W-386 (Air-K), W-72A,W-72A (Air-1A), W-50C 3-399 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.12 Cultural ResourcesTABLE 3.12-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES a/ (Continued)Warfare Area and OperationTraining AreasMine WarfareDeployment and RecoveryTowed MineWarfare DevicesNon-explosivePractice MunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh-explosive OrdnanceMilitaryExpended MaterialsGUNEX (surface-to-surface) boat W-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (surface-to-surface) ship W-386, W-72 Laser targetingVisit, Board, Search, and Seizure/MaritimeInterception Operations (VBSS/MIO)- ShipVBSS/MIO- HeloW-386 (Air-K)VACAPES OPAREAVACAPES OPAREAAir Warfare (AW)Air combat maneuver (ACM)W-72A, (Air-2A/B, 3A/B)GUNEX (air-to-air) W-72A MISSILEX (air-to-air)W-386 (Air D, G, H, K),W-72A GUNEX (surface-to-air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (surface-to-air) W-386 (Air D, G, H, K) Air intercept control (AIC) W-386, W-72Detect to engage (DTE) W-386, W-72Strike Warfare (STW)HARM missile exercise W-386 (Air E, F, I, J) Amphibious Warfare (AMW)Firing exercise (FIREX) with IntegratedMaritime Portable Acoustic Scoring andSimulator System (IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)W-386 (7C/D, 8C/D), W-72 (1C1/2) (PreferredAreas), W-386 (5C/D)(Secondary Areas) Chaff exercise- aircraftW-386, W-386 (Air-K),W-72 Chaff exercise- ship W-386, W-72 Flare exercise- aircraftW-386, W-386 (Air-K),W-72 3-400 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.12 Cultural ResourcesTABLE 3.12-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES a/ (Continued)Warfare Area and OperationTraining AreasMine WarfareDeployment and RecoveryTowed MineWarfare DevicesNon-explosivePractice MunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh-explosive OrdnanceMilitaryExpended MaterialsElectronic combat (EC) operations- aircraftEC operations- shipTest and EvaluationW-386 (Air-K)VACAPES OPAREAShipboard Electronic Systems EvaluationVACAPES OPAREAFacility (SESEF) Utilizationa/ For detailed information on the numbers and types of ordnance, specific weapons platforms, types of targets used, andlocation of operations, see Table 2.2-4 and Appendix D.MarylandThe U.S. Navy Shipwreck Inventory Project in Maryland identified 105 shipwrecks (naval vesselremains) of 21 vessel types in Maryland waters or relevant contiguous areas. Some of these include 36U.S. Navy vessels, two state navy vessels, one foreign navy vessel, three privateers, and 56 vessels inservice to the Confederacy (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org). Records of the Maryland StateHistoric Trust indicate that about 166 wrecks are located along the Maryland coast, and another 100 or soare possible or potential. About half the documented wrecks are schooners, with warships, steamers, andfrigates, constituting the other half.VirginiaThe Association of Underwater Explorers lists 50 known shipwrecks along the Virginia coast, as well ashundreds of unidentified wrecks (AUE, 2007). These wrecks represent a wide variety of vessels, fromtugs and submarines to tankers and barges. Along with collisions and storm events, a number of the shipswere sunk by German submarines during World War II. Others, including German vessels, werecommandeered and used for target practice. Some, such as Liberty ships, were stripped and sunk to formartificial reefs. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources indicates that numerous wrecked vesselsare known or suspected to exist within Virginia’s coastal waters. Of the 352 wrecks identified inChesapeake Bay, only a few can be identified by name or vessel type.3-401 March 2009

76°W75°W74°W73°WDelewareBayD. C.ANNAPOLISMilfordWildwoodCambridgeDELAWARESeafordLewesRehoboth BeachAtlantic CityOPAREANAS Patuxent RiverLexington ParkPrincess AnneMARYLANDOcean City38°NCrisfield38°NVIRGINIANASAWallops IslandVACAPES OPAREAChesapeakeBayCape Charles37°NNEWPORTNEWSval Station NorfolkNORFOLKPORTSMOUTHNABLittle CreekVIRGINIABEACHNAS Oceana37°NDam NeckNORTH CAROLINAAlbemarle SoundNags HeadVACAPES OPAREAPamlico SoundCapeHattera s35°NCherry PointPiney Island35°NdCityMonitor NationalMarine SanctuaryCherry PointOPAREAATLANTICOCEAN34°N34°N36°N36°N39°N39°N76°W75°W74°W73°WWVPAMDDENJLegendVACAPES Operating AreaFigure 3.12-1VANC3nmStateLimit12 nm Territorial LimitVACAPES ShipwrecksShipwrecksSC0 12.5 25 50 75 100Nautical MilesVACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-402

76°WChesapeakeBayYork RiverCAPE CHARLESJames River37°NNEWPORTNEWS37°NNaval Station NorfolkNORFOLKNABLittle CreekVIRGINIA BEACHPORTSMOUTHNAS Oceana76°WWVPAMDDENJLegendNaval and Marine BasesFigure 3.12-2SCVANCUrban AreasRoadsChesapeake Bay Shipwrecks0 2.5 5 10 15 20Shipwrecksin theChesapeake BayNautical MilesCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-403

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISNorth CarolinaChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.12 Cultural ResourcesWarfare, especially during World War II, contributed substantially to the wrecked vessels off NorthCarolina. Records of the North Carolina Underwater Archaeology Branch indicate that almost3,000 wrecks occurred from the northern Outer Banks area to New Inlet. Only 87 of these can beidentified by name, affiliation, or vessel type. Thirty-six of these vessels, including freighters, tankers,and three German submarines, were lost during World War II. Other shipwrecks along the NorthCarolina coast involved a wide variety of watercraft, including early 19th century Spanish merchantsailing ships, wood- and iron-sided steamers dating to the 1900s, freighters, whalers, gunboats, a steambattleship, and trawlers lost during World War II. The USS Monitor, USS Huron, and the 15 Civil Warshipwrecks in southeastern North Carolina are listed on the NRHP.VACAPES Study AreaThe Global Maritime Wrecks Database (Veridian, 2001) was used to identify the potential for shipwrecksto exist within the VACAPES Study Area. Approximately 525 locations indicating the presence of metalobstructions and/or submerged wrecks were identified in the VACAPES Study Area; of these, 160 can beidentified by name and vessel type (Veridian, 2001). Most identified vessels are from the United States,Norway, and Great Britain. Of the wrecks off the Virginia coast, the Florida and USS Cumberland arelisted on the NRHP.As a result of German submarine activity during WW II, many ships were torpedoed and sunk in theVACAPES Study Area. Some of these ships (e.g., the Kingston Celonite) are associated with loss of life.As these shipwrecks may contain human remains, they are considered war grave sites.A literature review was undertaken for the five potential Bottom Impact areas (Instrumented TrainingArea North, Instrumented Training Area South, and Warning Areas (W) 50A, 50B, and 50C) in theVACAPES OPAREA (Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. [SEARCH], 2008). Review ofavailable databases identified one known wreck site (Texaco) and at least 30 obstructions, navigationalaids or unidentified soundings within the Instrumented Training Area North. Two known wreck sites(Atkinson and Margaret) and at least 88 obstructions, navigational aids, objects or unidentified soundingshave been recorded in the Instrumented Training Area South (SEARCH, 2008). One wreck site (KingstonCelonite), and at least two unidentified soundings are located in W-50A (SEARCH, 2008). Two wrecksites (Salty Sea II and Tiger), and at least six obstructions or unidentified soundings have been recorded inW-50B (SEARCH, 2008). No wreck sites or obstructions occur in W-50C (SEARCH, 2008). Applicationof the predictive model indicates that four Potential Bottom Impact Areas have a high or moderatepotential to contain submerged cultural resources (SEARCH, 2008). Of the five areas, only W-50C isconsidered to have the lowest probability to contain submerged cultural resources (SEARCH, 2008:35).Because no comprehensive survey or evaluation of submerged resources has occurred in the Study Areaand the area is considered high to moderate probability for shipwrecks, additional shipwrecks are likely tooccur, and some existing and new shipwrecks could be considered eligible for the NRHP.The locations of known shipwrecks as identified in the literature review prepared by SEARCH, Inc. willbe provided to Navy operators so these resources may be avoided during training activities. Aspreviously discussed, exact locations of these resources are considered sensitive information andspecifically excluded from public dissemination under Section 304 of the NHPA.3.12.3 Environmental ConsequencesAn undertaking is considered to have an effect on a historic property when the undertaking may altercharacteristics of the property that may qualify it for inclusion in the NRHP. An effect is considered3-404 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.12 Cultural Resourcesadverse when it diminishes the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials,workmanship, feeling, or association.Adverse effects as defined by Section 106 of the NHPA include, but are not limited to: Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property; Isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property’s setting when thatcharacter contributes to the property’s qualification for the National Register; Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property oralter its setting; Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction; and Transfer, lease, or sale of the property (36 CFR 800.5 (a)(2)).For the purposes of this EIS/OEIS, a significant impact under NEPA is defined as an unresolvable“adverse effect” under Section 106 of the NHPA. Section 106 criteria of adverse effect were applied tocultural resources that could be affected by the project, and ways were considered to avoid, minimize, ormitigate adverse effects as described below.Note that adverse effects under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) also include reasonablyforeseeable effects caused by the alternatives, and those that would occur later in time, be farther removedin distance, or be cumulative (36 CFR 800.5(a)(1)). Because cultural resources are nonrenewable, alladverse effects on NRHP-eligible cultural resources in the VACAPES Study Area, as addressed in thisdraft EIS/OEIS, would be long term.Impacts to archaeological sites, specifically shipwrecks, may include, but not be limited to, physicaldisturbance through collision impacts from underwater equipment, vibration from HE detonations, andremoval of shipwreck features and artifacts Any physical disturbance in the area of an NRHP-eligible orpotentially eligible archaeological site, or modification to such a site, can affect the physical integrity ofthat cultural resource, resulting in alteration or destruction of those characteristics or qualities which makeit potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and thus, would be an adverse effect under Section 106 ofthe NHPA.3.12.3.1 No Action AlternativeThe training activities with the greatest potential to affect shipwrecks include mine countermeasures(MCM) exercise and mine neutralization. MCM events generally involve a helicopter with minesweepingand mine-hunting gear. Typically, the helicopter flies within 75 feet of the water while towing theappropriate system on the surface and/or down to a depth of 150 feet. The towed device may include oneor more systems as sonar, laser, mechanical, acoustic, magnetic, or sweeping. Except for the MK-105,MCM systems are deployed and recovered from the helicopter once the aircraft arrives are the trainingarea. The MK-105 must be towed from NS Norfolk to the training area.MCM systems include AN/AQS-20 and AN/AQS-24A, which are helicopter-towed sonar devices. Otherminesweeping systems include the MK-103 (mechanical minesweeping system), MK-104 (used tocounter acoustic-influencing mines), MK-105 (used to counter magnetic-influencing mines), and MK-106(a combined system, the MK-104 attached to an MK-105). Other systems such as the MK-104/MK-105and MOP (SPU-1W) cause mines to self-detonate (although no explosive mines are used for training).Under the No Action Alternative, a total of 1,358 Mine Warfare (MIW) sorties (see Table 2.2-5) wouldoccur yearly in areas W-50, W-72, and W-386 of the VACAPES OPAREA and lower Chesapeake Bay.These training areas have shipwrecks throughout that could be affected by minesweeping systems. Forexample, if operators were unaware of the locations of shipwrecks in the sortie area, the towed MIWdevices or attachment cable could inadvertently encounter, snag, and/or damage a shipwreck situated in3-405 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.12 Cultural Resourcesrelatively shallow water, particularly during at low tide. MIW device operators are required to towequipment without encountering the bottom or obstructions, because such strikes could damage expensiveequipment or put the aircraft in jeopardy. Therefore, aircraft crews are knowledgeable of the bottomdepths, existing reefs, shipwrecks, and other potential obstructions underwater. This knowledge makesthe likelihood of snagging the equipment, and damaging shipwrecks, very low (no historic propertiesaffected under Section 106).Mine neutralization activities in W-50 area could have an adverse effect on shipwrecks. Typically,12 mine neutralization events would occur yearly. Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) units useunderwater explosive charges to destroy or neutralize simulated mines with the detonation of explosivecharges equivalent to up to 20 pounds of TNT. Because water rapidly transmits shock waves, demolitionof mines could damage cultural sites in the general vicinity. The amount of damage would depend onfactors such as size of the charge, distance from the wreck, and topography of the ocean bottom(possibleadverse effect under Section 106).Bombing exercises and surface-to-surface gunnery exercises would have a lower potential to affectshipwrecks. These activities can deposit military expended material (MEM) on the ocean bottom in thevicinity of shipwrecks. However, even if bomb fragments sank to the ocean bottom, it is unlikely thatthey would come into contact with a wreck. Even if they should sink in the vicinity of a wreck, the MEMwould not affect the historic characteristics of the shipwreck, and eventually all would be covered bysediments. Thus, these operations would not have an adverse effect on shipwrecks (no adverse effectunder Section 106).Under the No Action Alternative, where training operations and major range events would continue atcurrent levels, but because avoidance of known shipwreck locations is conducted during current training,no significant impacts (only negligible to minor impacts) to cultural resources within the VACAPESStudy Area would be expected (no adverse effects under Section 106). On-going MIW operations andEOD activities would have the advantage of past experience with known locations of shipwrecks, sooperators should be able to avoid damage to cultural resources in these areas. Required planning andimplementation of described mitigation measures, especially avoidance, (see Chapter 5) would helpreduce the potential for impacts.3.12.3.2 Alternative 1Under Alternative 1, MCM activities would increase from 1,358 sorties per year to 2,060 per year. Theseexercises would include use of the: MK-103, MK-104, MK-105, MK-106, OASIS, and SPU-1W systems in the lower Chesapeake Bay(see Figure 2.2-2 and 2.2-3); and AN/AQS-20 and AN/AQS-24 systems in the shallow areas (40 to 150 feet) of W-386 and W-72(Figure 2.2-4).No simulated mines or Versatile Exercise Mine (VEM) units would be deployed in this alternative.If helicopter operators were unaware of the locations of shipwrecks in the study area, the towed MIWdevices and attachment cables could inadvertently encounter, snag, and damage a shipwreck situated inrelatively shallow water, particularly during low tide. However, as discussed in the No ActionAlternative, this occurrence would be highly unlikely (no historic properties affected under Section 106).Mine neutralization activities, including EOD, RAMICS, and AMNS, would increase from 12 events peryear to 334. As described in Section 2.2.4, bottom and moored mine shapes would be deployed inW-50C under Alternative 1. Mine shapes would be anchored with concrete blocks 8 to 16 cubic feet insize. Anchors would be dropped from a boat, and mooring lines would be attached with the shapes.3-406 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.12 Cultural ResourcesBecause there are no known shipwrecks in W-50C, there is no possibility of dropping an anchor on aknown cultural resource (no historic properties affected under Section 106).Mine neutralization activities used in AMNS and RAMICS systems use non-explosive practice munitionsto cause the mine shape to surface or be destroyed. With AMNS, the target location is determined, andthen an expendable, self-propelled neutralizer device locates the target and renders it inoperable.RAMICS is a targeting, fire control, and gun system that fires a supercavitating projectile at a nearsurfacemoored mine shape. These mine neutralization systems would be used in W-50C, where noknown shipwrecks occur (no historic properties affected under Section 106).As described under the No Action Alternative, EOD units that use underwater explosive charges toneutralize simulated mines have the potential to damage cultural sites in the general vicinity. Damagewould vary, based on sea bottom topography and proximity to the shipwreck. All EOD training withexplosive charges would be performed in W-50C, which previously has been approved for detonations.There are no known shipwrecks located in W-50C (no historic properties affected under Section 106).MEM such as shells and mine fragments expended during the proposed operations would sink to theocean bottom. It is unlikely these materials would come into contact with a shipwreck. However, ifMEM were to sink onto a shipwreck, or in the near vicinity, it would not affect the historic characteristicsof the shipwreck. Eventually, the MEM would provide a substrate for benthic colonization and wouldlikely be covered by shifting sediments. Thus, these operations would not have an adverse effect onshipwrecks (no adverse effect under Section 106).Through planning and implementation of mitigation measures, including avoidance, (see Chapter 5)Alternative 1 would result in no significant impacts (negligible to minor impacts) for shipwrecks in theChesapeake Bay or the VACAPES Study Area (no adverse effect under Section 106).3.12.3.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)The same types of MIW activities described for Alternative 1 would be employed for Alternative 2,except that training areas for the MCM systems would be identified. Under the preferred alternative, thenumber of training events would be about the same as in Alternative 1 (an increase in 50 sorties; seeTable 2.2-4), and the following mine warfare training areas would be designated within the VACAPESStudy Area: Training areas in W-50C would be established for explosive/non-explosive MK-103, AMNS, andRAMICS training (Figure 2.2-1). For RAMICS and AMNS training, up to 20 moored mines would be deployed in a one nm by four nmarea in W-50C. MK-103 training area would be located in W-50A and C. The training area would include up to 20moored mines held in place with anchors.Mooring cables would be attached to 8- to 16-cubic-foot concrete blocks set on the ocean bottom. Thereare no shipwrecks in this area, so there would be no effects for this MIW activity (no historic propertiesaffected under Section 106).Sixty shipwrecks are located within the general area of the proposed MK-105 and SPU-1W training area(Figures 3.12-2 and 2.2-2). However, most of the wrecks are close to the shores of the cities of Norfolkand Virginia Beach, outside the vicinity of the proposed training area.Exercises in each of these mine warfare training areas would involve helicopter-towed systems. All thesetowed MIW devices would have the potential to snag or damage submerged shipwrecks. However, asstated in the No Action Alternative, the likelihood of an aircrew dragging the device on the ocean or baybottom or hitting a submerged structure is low (no historic properties affected under Section 106).3-407 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.12 Cultural ResourcesEach one nm by four nm area would be populated with 20 VEM units (see Section 2.2.5 for description).VEM units would be placed on the lower Chesapeake Bay bottom in areas that would avoid shippinglanes, shipwrecks, artificial reefs, and hard bottom areas. Because VEM units are instrumented simulatedmine shapes, no detonations or explosions would occur.There is one potential shipwreck in the proposed OASIS training area (Figure 2.2-3). As with otherminesweeping systems, there is a potential to snag or damage this submerged shipwreck. However, thepotential is very small because of the depth of the water (40 feet) and the operators’ knowledge of thelocation of the only wreck in the area. The OASIS mine field would be one nm by four nm and populatedwith 20 VEM units that would electronically record acoustical and magnetic sweep systems. Noexplosive devices would be used in these ranges. By knowing the location of the shipwreck and planningmine locations, installing a mine on a shipwreck would be highly unlikely (no historic properties affectedunder Section 106).There are a few shipwrecks in the areas where the proposed AN/AQS-20 and AN/AQS-24A mine trainingarea would be located (Figure 2.2-4). As in the other mine training areas, by knowing the location ofshipwrecks and planning mine locations, installing a mine on a shipwreck would be highly unlikely.The 96 percent decreased use of High Explosive (HE) bombs in Alternative 2 compared to the No ActionAlternative or Alternative 1 would not affect any cultural resources. BOMBEXs would only occur in W-386 (Air-K) under this alternative which has water depths ranging between 90 – 120-ft. HE bombs willnormally explode at or near the surface of the water. MEM resulting from exploded ordnance would dropthrough the water column and rest on the ocean floor. According to the shipwreck database, very fewshipwrecks occur in the Air-K grid of W-386. As stated previously, in the unlikely event that MEM fallson a shipwreck, the expended material would not cause any additional harm to the resource (no adverseeffect under Section 106).Through planning and implementation of described mitigation measures, especially avoidance, (seeChapter 5) Alternative 2 would cause no significant adverse impacts (negligible to minor impacts) forshipwrecks in the Chesapeake Bay or the VACAPES Study Area (no adverse effect under Section 106).3.12.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThe analysis presented above indicates that the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2would not result in unavoidable significant effects to historic properties.3.12.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)Less than significant impacts to cultural resources would result from the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1, or Alternative 2 (the Preferred Alternative). MEM would be deposited in offshore areas,and most would become buried in the sea floor sediment and have no substantial cultural resource effects.Even if MEM sank in the vicinity of a wreck, it would not affect the historic characteristics of theshipwreck. Although the volume of MEM would increase in Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 incorrelation to changes in operations, the effects on cultural resources would be no greater than under theNo Action Alternative. In all alternatives, mine warfare activities would be limited to the identified areasin the lower Chesapeake Bay, W-50A/C, W-386, and W-72 and would not affect cultural resources.Table 3.12-2 summarizes stressors by alternative and the impacts that would occur under NEPA withinthe U.S. territory or under EO 12114 outside U.S. waters in the global commons.3-408 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.12 Cultural ResourcesTABLE 3.12-2SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON CULTURALRESOURCES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREASummary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative andStressorNo ActionMine warfaredeployment andrecoveryTowed mine warfaredevicesNon-explosive practicemunitionsUnderwaterdetonations and highexplosiveordnanceMilitary expendedmaterialsImpact conclusionAlternative 1Mine warfaredeployment andrecoveryTowed mine warfaredevicesNon-explosive practicemunitionsUnderwaterdetonations and highexplosiveordnanceMilitary expendedmaterialsImpact conclusionNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential of installing concreteanchor on shipwreck.Limited potential for a towed MIWdevice to disturb a shipwreck.Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential to strike a shipwreck.Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential for explosions to occurat the location of a shipwreck.Localized accumulation of MEM on seabottom; limited potential for MEM toaccumulate at the location of ashipwreck.Less than significant impacts to culturalresources with implementation ofmitigation measures (avoidance of knownshipwreck locations).Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential of installing concreteanchor on shipwreck.Limited potential for a towed MIWdevice to disturb a shipwreck.Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential to strike a shipwreck.Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential for explosions to occurat the location of a shipwreck.Localized accumulation of MEM on seabottom; limited potential for MEM toaccumulate at the location of ashipwreck.Less than significant impacts to culturalresources with implementation ofmitigation measures (avoidance of knownshipwreck locations).Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential of installing concreteanchor on shipwreck.Limited potential for a towed MIWdevice to disturb a shipwreck.Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential to strike a shipwreck.Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential for explosions to occurat the location of a shipwreck.Localized accumulation of MEM on seabottom; limited potential for MEM toaccumulate at the location of ashipwreck.Less than significant harm to culturalresources with implementation ofmitigation measures (avoidance of knownshipwreck locations).Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential of installing concreteanchor on shipwreck.Limited potential for a towed MIWdevice to disturb a shipwreck.Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential to strike a shipwreck.Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential for explosions to occurat the location of a shipwreck.Localized accumulation of MEM on seabottom; limited potential for MEM toaccumulate at the location of ashipwreck.Less than significant harm to culturalresources with implementation ofmitigation measures (avoidance of knownshipwreck locations).3-409 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.12 Cultural ResourcesTABLE 3.12-2SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON CULTURALRESOURCES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA (Continued)Summary of Effects and Impact ConclusionAlternative andStressorAlternative 2Mine warfaredeployment andrecoveryTowed mine warfaredevicesNon-explosive practicemunitionsUnderwaterdetonations and highexplosive ordnanceMilitary expendedmaterialsImpact conclusionNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential of installing concreteanchor on shipwreck.Limited potential for a towed MIWdevice to disturb a shipwreck.Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential to strike a shipwreck.Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential for explosions to occurat the location of a shipwreck.Localized accumulation of MEM on seabottom; limited potential for MEM toaccumulate at the location of ashipwreck.Less than significant impacts to culturalresources with implementation ofmitigation measures (avoidance of knownshipwreck locations).Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential of installing concreteanchor on shipwreck.Limited potential for a towed MIWdevice to disturb a shipwreck.Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential to strike a shipwreck.Localized disturbance to sea bottom;limited potential for explosions to occurat the location of a shipwreck.Localized accumulation of MEM on seabottom; limited potential for MEM toaccumulate at the location of ashipwreck.Less than significant harm to culturalresources with implementation ofmitigation measures (avoidance of knownshipwreck locations).3-410 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.13 TRANSPORTATIONChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 Transportation3.13.1 Introduction and MethodsTraffic issues refer to transportation and circulation of vehicles within an organized framework. Thisdiscussion addresses the marine and air traffic within the vicinity of the VACAPES Range Complex.Military and civilian use of the offshore sea and air areas is compatible, with Navy ships accounting forthree percent of the total ship presence out to 200 nautical miles (nm) (Center for Naval Analysis(CNA), 2001). Where naval vessels and aircraft conduct operations that are not compatible withcommercial or recreational transportation (e.g., hazardous weapons firing), they are confined to OperatingAreas (OPAREA) away from commercially used waterways and inside Special Use Airspace (SUA).Hazardous operations are communicated to all vessels and operators by use of Notice-to-Mariners(NOTMAR), issued by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and Notice-to-Airmen (NOTAM), issued by theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA).Ocean Traffic. Ocean traffic is the transit of commercial, private, or military vessels at-sea, includingsubmarines. Ocean traffic flow in congested waters, especially near coastlines, is controlled by the use ofdirectional commercially used waterways for large vessels (cargo, container ships, and tankers). Trafficflow controls are also implemented to ensure that harbors and ports-of-entry remain as uncongested aspossible. There is less control on ocean traffic involving recreational boating, sport fishing, commercialfishing, and activity by naval vessels. In most cases, the factors that govern commercially usedwaterways or boating traffic include the following: adequate depth of water, weather conditions(primarily affecting recreational vessels), the availability of fish of recreational or commercial value, andwater temperature (higher water temperatures increase recreational boat traffic and diving activities).Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) are seazones that were established by the Third United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea in 1982. Part V, Article 55 of the Convention establishes that the EEZis “an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the specific legal regime established inthis Part, under which the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State and the rights and freedom of otherStates are governed by the relevant provisions of this Convention.” (UN, 1982). The EEZs extend 200nautical miles from the coastal baseline (the baseline usually follows the low-water line). Within theEEZ, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources; however, foreign nationshave the freedom of navigation and over-flight, subject to the regulation of the reigning coastal state(NOAA, 2007). The EEZ was established by Presidential Proclamation in 1983 (NOAA, 2007).Internal waters are those waters and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. Territorial watersextend from the baseline to 12 nautical miles. These areas were defined by the 1982 Law of the SeaConvention and established the coastal state’s right to establish laws, regulate use and have use of anyresource in internal and territorial waters (NOAA, 2007).Air Traffic. Air traffic refers to movements of aircraft through airspace. Safety and security factorsdictate that use of airspace and control of air traffic be closely regulated. Accordingly, regulationsapplicable to all aircraft are promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to definepermissible uses of designated airspace, and to control that use. These regulations are intended toaccommodate the various categories of aviation, whether military, commercial, or general aviation. Theregulatory scheme for airspace and air traffic control varies from highly controlled to uncontrolled. Lesscontrolled situations include flight under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) or flight outside of U.S. controlledairspace (e.g., flight over international waters off the east coast). Examples of highly controlled air trafficsituations are flights in the vicinity of airports where aircraft are in critical phases of flight, either take-offor landing and flight under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), particularly flights on high or low altitudeairways.3-411 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 TransportationThe FAA owns and operates the air traffic control system. The system of airspace designation makes useof various definitions and classifications of airspace to facilitate control. “Controlled Airspace” is ageneric term that covers different classes of airspace. The controlling agency of any airspace is the FAAAir Traffic Control (ATC) facility that exercises control of the airspace when Special Use Airspace has isnot active. Special Use Airspace is specially designated airspace that is used for a specific purpose and iscontrolled by the military unit or other organization whose activity established the requirement for theSpecial Use Airspace (FAA, 2006). Special Use Airspace includes restricted areas, military operationsareas, as well as warning, prohibited, alert, and controlled firing areas. Airways are established routes used by commercial aircraft, general aviation, and military aircraft.There are two types of airway route structures: low altitude routes (those below 18,000 feet mean sealevel [MSL]) and high altitude routes (those above 18,000 feet MSL). “Victor Routes” are the network of airways serving commercial aviation operations up to18,000 MSL. Class A extends from 18,000 MSL up to and including 60,000 MSL and includes designated airwaysfor commercial aviation operations at those altitudes. Class B airspace extends from the ground to 10,000 MSL surrounding the nation’s busiest airports. Class C and D airspace are defined areas around certain airports, tailored to the specific airport. Class E is controlled airspace not included in Class A, B, C, or D. Class G is uncontrolled airspace (i.e., not designated as Class A-E).Special Use Airspace refers to areas with defined dimensions where flight activities are confined due totheir nature and the need to restrict or limit non-participating aircraft. SUA is established underprocedures outlined in 14 CFR Part 73. The majority of SUA is established for military activities, andmay be used for commercial or general aviation when not reserved for military activities. There aremultiple types of SUA. A Restricted Area is a type of SUA within which non-military flight activities areclosely restricted. Other types of SUA include Military Operating Areas (MOA), alert areas, andcontrolled firing areas; each SUA designation carries varying restrictions on the types of military andnon-military activities that may be conducted. One type of SUA of particular relevance to the VACAPESEnvrionmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) Study Area is aWarning Area, which is defined in 14 CFR Part 1 as follows:“A warning area is airspace of defined dimensions, extending from 3 nautical milesoutward from the coast of the United States that contains activity that may be hazardousto nonparticipating aircraft. The purpose of such warning areas is to warnnonparticipating pilots of potential danger. A warning area may be located over domesticor international waters or both.”Warning areas are established to contain a variety of aircraft and non-aircraft activities, such as aerialgunnery, air and surface missile firings, bombing, aircraft carrier operations, surface and subsurfaceoperations, and naval gunfire. Warning areas contain hazardous activities; where these activities areconducted mainly in international airspace, the FAA regulations may warn against, but do not have theauthority to prohibit, flight by nonparticipating aircraft.3.13.1.1 Assessment Methods and Data UsedThe CNA (2001, 2004, 2006) studies were used to look at non-Navy ship traffic in the vicinity of theVACAPES Range Complex. In 2001 the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO-N45) initiated a study that,amongst other things, sought to determine the contribution of the Navy to coastal ship traffic. This study3-412 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 Transportationutilized the Historical Temporal Shipping database 15 and daily listings of Navy ship traffic. Regarding“traffic” issues, the 2001 CNA study concluded that the Navy ships were a small fraction of the coastalship presence (1/30 th ) and comparisons of naval and commercial traffic is difficult due to naval trafficbeing “patchy” in both time and space while commercial traffic is more uniform.The 2004 CNA study concentrated more on the Navy Operating Areas (OPAREAs) and, due to thedifficulties in estimating small commercial vessels and recreational boats, the CNA was asked to establisha methodology for estimating the small boat and craft traffic in a given ocean area. Additionally, theHITS data used in the 2001 study had been developed in 1993 and had not been updated so, usingsporadic vessel position data, the 2004 study developed a tool for comparing relative densities of largevessels, by vessel type, region, and time to compare Navy and non-Navy traffic levels (CNA, 2004).The 2006 CNA study concentrated more on information concerning Navy and non-Navy vessel trafficand speed patterns due to increasing concerns regarding proposed speed restrictions. The studyconcluded that estimates of vessel speed could be calculated from positional data and that, while Navyships were capable of transiting at higher speeds than most large commercial vessels, they generally donot do so (CNA, 2006).Information regarding personal watercraft was obtained in part from the USCG. In addition to its nationaldefense role as one of the five U.S. Armed Services, the USCG is charged with a broad scope ofregulatory, law-enforcement, humanitarian, and emergency-response duties. In addition to ensuringmaritime safety and security, the USCG focuses on personal watercraft and boating. State tourism andparks and recreation divisions also provided sources for state-specific personal watercraft and recreationalboating data.Sport diving industry statistics are not maintained for numbers of individuals participating in specificregions of the country or for sites that are commonly used (Davison, 2007; DEMA, 2006). Dive locationsidentified in this document were established through the use of the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration Office of Coast Survey’s Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System, asurvey of state dive charter company websites, Veridian Corporation’s 2001 Global Maritime WrecksDatabase, and state tourism and parks and recreation information.3.13.1.2 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsImpacts to transportation are assessed in terms of anticipated levels of disruption or improvement ofcurrent transportation patterns and systems; deterioration or improvement of existing levels of service;and changes in existing levels of transportation safety. Impacts may arise from physical changes tocirculation (i.e., closing, rerouting, or creation of new traffic patterns), or changes in daily or peak-hourtraffic volumes created either by direct or indirect changes to transportation activities. Stressors thatwould likely impact transportation activities are identified in Table 3.13-1. These stressors were15 The Historical Temporal Shipping (HITS) data is a 1993 database, developed by the NavalOceanographic Office, which describes the number of ships expected in each region of the ocean for fivetypes of ships: fishing, merchant, tanker, large tanker, and supertanker. While ship types other than thoseincluded in the HITS data also may transit the site, the selected ship types are expected to berepresentative of major commercial shipping in the region. Traffic density was determined for this studyby isolating 1-degree latitude by 1-degree longitude boxes. For each box, ship-hour estimates weredivided by box area. This calculation is useful comparing relative densities between East Coast NavyOPAREAs and ship types (CNA, 2001).3-413 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 Transportationidentified by conducting a detailed analysis of the warfare areas, operations, and specific activitiesincluded in the Alternatives.TABLE 3.13-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO TRANSPORTATION RESOURCESWarfare Area and OperationTraining AreasVessel Movements(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Military Expended MaterialsMine Warfare (MIW)Mine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM) Lower Chesapeake Bay W-50A/C Mine Countermeasures Exercise (MCM)W-386, W-72Mine Neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (at sea)Missile Exercise (MISSILEX) (Air-to-Surface)Gunnery Exercise (GUNEX) (Air-to-Surface)W-386 (Air-K)W-72A (Air-3B)W-72A/BW-386 (Air-K) W-72AW-386 (Air-K), W-72A,W-72A (Air-1A), W-50C GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) Boat W-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface) Ship W-386, W-72 Laser Targeting W-386 (Air-K) Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure/MaritimeInterception Operations (VBSS/MIO)-ShipVACAPES OPAREAVBSS/MIO- Helo VACAPES OPAREA Air Warfare (AW)Air Combat Maneuver (ACM)W-72A(Air-2A/B, 3A/B)GUNEX (Air-to-Air) W-72A MISSILEX (Air-to-Air)W-386 (Air D, G, H, K)W-72AGUNEX (Surface-to-Air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (Surface-to-Air)W-386(Air D, G, H, K)Air Intercept Control (AIC) W-386, W-72 Detect to Engage (DTE) W-386, W-72 3-414 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 TransportationTABLE 3.13-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES (Continued)Warfare Area and OperationTraining AreasVessel Movements(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Military Expended MaterialsStrike Warfare (STW)HARM Missile ExerciseAmphibious Warfare (AMW)Firing Exercise (FIREX) with IntegratedMaritime Portable Acoustic Scoring andSimulator System (IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)Chaff Exercise- aircraftW-386(Air E,F,I,J) W-386 (7C/D, 8C/D), W-72 (1C1/2) (PreferredAreas), W-386 (5C/D)(Secondary Areas )W-386, W-386 (Air-K)and W-72 Chaff Exercise- ship W-386 and W-72 Flare Exercise- aircraftElectronic Combat (EC) OperationsaircraftW-386, W-386 (Air-K)and W-72W-386 (Air-K) EC Operations- ship VACAPES OPAREA Test and EvaluationShipboard Electronic Systems EvaluationFacility (SESEF) UtilizationVACAPES OPAREA Affected Environment3.13.1.3 Ocean TrafficMilitaryThe VACAPES OPAREA covers an area of approximately 27,661 square nautical miles(nm 2 ) of seaspace off the coast of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina. (Figure 1.1-1). The Navy operatesfor 1,400 steaming days 16 per year within the VACAPES OPAREAS (Table 2.2-4).The volume ofundersea space associated with a particular portion of VACAPES OPAREA varies greatly based on the16 Steaming days are a measurement of time for a single vessel, at sea, within a 24 hour timeframe. One steamingday is 24 hours and partial steaming days are based on a 24 hour period. Two steaming days could be one ship for48 hours or four ships for 12 hours each.3-415 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 Transportationsea floor depth. The edge of the continental shelf cuts along the western third of the OPAREA. Sea floordepths along the continental shelf are uniformly shallow and center around 30 fathoms (180 feet) at itsseaward edge. East of the shelf edge the sea floor drops steeply, reaching approximately 2,160 fathoms(13,000 feet) along the southeast corner of the VACAPES OPAREA. While most of the continental shelfis uniform in depth, several underwater canyons extend shoreward from the shelf edge. VACAPESundersea space is summarized as having the following: An area of 27,661 nm 2 ; Shallow littoral waters less than 10 fathoms (60 feet); Shallow offshore waters less than 100 fathoms (600 feet); Deepwater sloping sea floor and canyons to 1,600 fathoms (9,600 feet); and Deepwater ocean areas to 2,160 fathoms (13,000 feet).Figure 3.13-1 shows the areas where submarine operations are normally conducted. Submarines typicallyuse transit lanes ECHO and WHISKEY and the entire W-386, but avoid areas 1, 47A, 44A-D, and 8A-D.In W-72 submarines typically avoid use of areas 2A, 3A, and 3B1-3B4. Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 depict thecurrent usage of these areas. Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet is the SubmarineExercise Area Coordinator (SEAC) for the submarine operating area (SUBOA) within the VACAPESOPAREA. Clearance is provided by Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC)VACAPES prior to surface ships transiting VACAPES OPAREA. Under normal circumstancesFACSFAC VACAPES does not exercise any control over vessel operation in cleared areas. Clearance fora surface area does not include the airspace above or the subsurface below. Units are required to obtainclearance for all hazardous or exclusive operations within the OPAREA. Subsurface operations may berequested and conducted in all areas with 48 hours notice, except VACAPES OPAREA 3B which can bescheduled in real time.CivilianThe east coast of the United States is heavily traveled by marine vessels, with several commercial portsoccurring near Navy OPAREAs. The inshore areas of the VACAPES OPAREA are particularly heavilytraveled as they occur near commercial ports in both Delaware and Virginia; however, the areas in whichtraining would occur (as depicted in Figures 2.2-1, 2.2-2, and 2.2-3) will not be set up in the vessel transitlanes and Navy traffic would not interfere with commercial shipping. Recreational activities offshoreconsist of game and sport fishing, charter boat fishing, sport diving, water skiing, swimming, dolphin andwhale watching, sailing, and power cruising (Virginia Tourism Corporation, 2008). Recreational boatsrange throughout the coastal waters, depending on season and weather conditions. The South AtlanticRegion (from Delaware to Florida) maintained 2.5 million registered boats in 2001 (Fishing News, 2002).The number of registered recreational boats and their nationwide ranking for each state bordering theVACAPES OPAREA is: North Carolina – 362,784 (ranking 11 th nationwide in registered recreational boats) Virginia – 245,073 (ranking 19 th nationwide in registered recreational boats) Maryland – 205,812 (ranking 24 th nationwide in registered recreational boats) Delaware – 52,119 (ranking 43 rd nationwide in registered recreational boats)(NMMA, 2006; USCG, 2003, USCG, 2005)3-416 March 2009

76°W75°W74°W73°W39°NANNAPOLISMilfordWildwood39°NCambridgeDELAWARESeafordLewesRehoboth Beach44A44B45A45BAtlantic CityOPAREANAS Patuxent RiverLexington ParkPrincess AnneMARYLANDOcean City44C44D45C45D4647A47B48A48B49A49B5038°NCrisfield38°NNASAWallops Island2A2B3A3B4A4B5A5B12C 2D 3C3D4C4D5CVACAPES OPAREA5DCape Charles612 nm Territorial Limit7A7C7B7D8A8C8B8D9A9C9B9D10A10C10B10D11A11C11B11D12A12B37°NNEWPORT NEWSal Base NorfolkNORFOLKNAB Little CreekVIRGINIABEACHNAS OceanaFACSFAC VACAPESPORTSMOUTHDam Neck131A11A32A11A21A41B11B31B21B41C11C31C21C4WhiskeyEcho1D11D21E11E21F11F237°N36°NRTH CAROLINA20Nags Head2A33A13A32A22A43A23A42B12B33B12B22B43B22C12C31D31D42C22D12D2VACAPES OPAREA2C42D31E32E11E42E21F32F11F42F236°N273B33C12D42E33C22E4333B43D12F32F434A3C33D23E135°NPiney Island12 nm Territorial Limit34B3940A40B3C43D33D43E33E23E435°N40C40D43Cherry PointOPAREAATLANTICOCEAN34°N34°N76°W75°W74°W73°WWVPAMDDENJLegendVACAPES OPAREAFigure 3.13-1SCVANCSurface Grid3 nm Territorial Limit12 nm Territorial LimitSubmarine Transit LanesSubmarineUsage Areas0 10 20 40 60 80Nautical MilesVACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-417

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 TransportationSailboats in the 75-foot and larger class, and cruising vessels transiting ocean passages (e.g., from someNorth Carolina ports to the Bahamas or Bermuda) might favor courses through the vicinity of VACAPESOPAREA. (NMMA, 2007). Commercial used waterways do traverse the VACAPES Range Complexbut are controlled by the use of directional commercially used waterways for large vessels (cargo,container ships, and tanker) (Figure 3.13-2). Traffic flow controls are also implemented to ensure thatharbors and ports-of-entry remain as uncongested as possible. Military and civilian use of the offshoreareas is compatible because naval vessels conducting hazardous operations are confined to areas awayfrom commercially used waterways. Hazardous operations are communicated to all vessels and operatorsby use of NOTMARs published by the USCG.Shipwrecks provide habitat suitable for development of artificial reefs, and are popular destinations fordivers. Within the VACAPES OPAREA, about 89 shipwrecks are located offshore of North Carolina(Veridian, 2001). Virginia offshore divers are diving for wrecks or artificial reefs, as coral does not occurat this latitude. Popular ship wreck diving destinations occur between 50-160 feet deep (Reef ScubaAccessories, 2007). Despite having several offshore scuba diving locations, (including roughly 525occurring in the VACAPES OPAREA (Veridian, 2001) in a statewide survey, diving was not given as asignificant reason for recreational boating among boat owners (Responsive Management, 2000).Shipwrecks in the VACAPES OPAREA number about 60 offshore of Maryland, 307 offshore ofVirginia, and roughly 69 offshore of Delaware (Veridian, 2001).The VACAPES OPAREA contains submarine transit lanes ECHO and WHISKEY, which are used bysubmarines transiting submerged (i.e., 98 feet or lower). Submarines entering the surface area (surfacedown to, but not including, 98 feet) should expect mutual usage of the area. Unless an exclusive surfacearea clearance has been obtained from FACSFAC VACAPES by the SEAC, surface units may beassigned operations in these areas. FACSFAC VACAPES grants concurrent surface and exclusivesubsurface clearances to the SEAC for submarine operations. Under normal circumstances, FACSFACVACAPES does not communicate with or exercise control over submarines that are in transit or areconducting operations within the VACAPES OPAREA.3.13.1.4 Lower Chesapeake BayThe Lower Chesapeake Bay is home to the Port of Virginia, the third-busiest port facility on the EastCoast. In 2005 the port accommodated nearly 16 million short tons of imports and exports, amounting to20 percent of the total of East Coast maritime trade. The port handled 2,815 vessel calls, an average ofabout seven per day.Ships transiting through the Lower Chesapeake Bay area utilize two primary commercially usedwaterways: the Thimble Shoals Channel, which leads to Hampton Roads, and the Chesapeake Channel,which leads to points north including the Port of Baltimore. These two channels pass over the underwater(tunnel) sections of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel system.The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel crosses the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and connects the City ofVirginia Beach to Cape Charles on the eastern shore. From shore to shore the crossing is 17.6 miles andis supported financially by tolls with an average traffic volume on the Bridge-Tunnel of 9,700 vehiclesper day (approximately 10 percent of which are large trucks), reaching 20,000 vehicles per day on busysummer days (Kozel, 2005).The Bridge-Tunnel facility encompasses approximately 20 miles to accommodate vehicular traffic. Thefacility provides a link via highway US 13 between Virginia’s Eastern Shore and Hampton Roads,Virginia. The crossing consists of a series of low-Thimble Shoals and Chesapeake navigation channels.3-418 March 2009

76°W75°W74°W73°W39°NANNAPOLISMilfordWildwood39°NCambridgeDELAWARESeafordLewesRehoboth Beach44A44B45A45BAtlantic CityOPAREANAS Patuxent RiverLexington ParkPrincess AnneMARYLANDOcean City44C44D45C45D4647A47B48A48B49A49B5038°NCrisfield38°NNASAWallops Island2A2B3A3B4A4B5A5B12C 2D 3C3D4C4D5C5DCape Charles3 nm State Limit67A12 nm Territorial Limit7B8A8B9A9BVACAPES OPAREA10A10B11A11B12A7C7D8C8D9C9D10C10D11C11D12BNEWPORT NEWS37°NNS NorfolkNORFOLKNAB VIRGINIALittle CreekBEACH37°N36°NPORTSMOUTHNAS OceanaDam NeckVIRGINIANORTH CAROLINA1320Nags Head1A11A32A12A33A13A31A21A42A22A43A23A41B11B32B12B33B11B21B42B22B43B21C11C32C12C31C21D11D21C41D31D42C22D12D22C4 VACAPES OPAREA2D31E11E32E11E21E42E21F11F32F11F21F42F236°N273B33C12D42E33C22E4333B43D12F32F434A3C33D23E135°Nerry PointPiney Island3 nm State Limit34B3940A3C43D33E23E435°N40B3D43E3y40C40DCherry PointOPAREA43ATLANTICOCEAN34°N76°W75°Wm74°W73°W34°NWVPAMDDENJLegendVACAPES OPAREA3nmStateLimitFigure 3.13-2SCNCVASurface Grid12 nm Territorial LimitCommercially Used WaterwaysNote:VACAPES OPAREA surface grid coordinates reference:FACSFAC VACAPES Instruction 3120.1J, (January 2001).0 12.5 25 50 75 100Nautical MilesCommercially UsedWaterways in the Vicinityof the VACAPES Study AreaVACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-419

76°WChesapeakeBayYork RiverEntrance ChannelYorkSplit Channel37°NJames RiverNEWPORT NEWSNewport NewsChannelThimble Shoal Channel37°NNorfolk HarborChannelPORTSMOUTHNORFOLKElizabeth RiverChannelVIRGINIABEACHVIRGINIATerritorial Limit3 nm State Limit12 nmNORTH CAROLINANJ76°WMDDELegendVACAPES OPAREAFigure 3.13-3NCVA3 nm State Limit12 nm Territorial LimitCommercially Used WaterwaysPrecautionary Areas0 2.5 5 10 15 20Nautical MilesCommercially UsedWaterways in the Vicinity ofthe Lower Chesapeake BayVACAPESRange ComplexCoordinate System: GCS WGS 19843-420

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 TransportationTwo manmade islands (approximately 5.25 acres each) are located on each end of the facility. There arealso high level bridges over two other navigation channels: North Channel Bridge and Fisherman InletBridge (CBBT, 2008)3.13.1.5 Air TrafficThe VACAPES OPAREA airspace covers an area of approximately 28,672 nm 2 of special use airspaceover the sea space OPAREA. Requests to schedule the airspace, surface, and subsurface training areas,and hazardous events (those involving firing or dropping ordnance) are coordinated directly withFACSFAC VACAPES. The FACSFAC VACAPES operations schedule is published weekly and listsassigned radio frequencies and area assignment times for events controlled by FACSFAC VACAPES orwhich involve commercial aircraft. Full and specific guidelines, procedures, and restrictions are providedin FACSFAC VACAPES Instruction 3120.1 Series.MilitaryWarning Areas of the VACAPES Range Complex are large blocks of SUA generally overlaying theVACAPES OPAREA from the surface to an unlimited altitude. Operations conducted in these WarningAreas include all weather flight training; Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) flights; refueling; test flights;rocket and missile firing; bombing; fleet training; independent unit training; anti-submarine warfare;aircraft carrier, ship and submarine operations; and anti-air and surface gunnery. The total operations inthese areas were 13,784 in Fiscal Year 2003 (the baseline year for operations). The Warning Areas of theVACAPES Range Complex include Warning Area W-50A/B/C; W-72A/B, W-110, W-386A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I/J; and W-387A/B (Figure 1.1-1).FACSFAC VACAPES is the principal controlling authority for the VACAPES Range Complex.FACSFAC is in essence an air traffic control facility that coordinates closely with the FAA to ensurecontrol of SUA that consists of warning areas and restricted areas, military operating areas, air trafficcontrol assigned airspace, and surface/subsurface operating areas. FACSFAC VACAPES is located atNAS Oceana and has responsibility for the following activities and procedures:Schedule, coordinate, and provide range control for surface and airborne missile firing exercises.Coordinate, schedule, and oversee associated commercial and military aircraft services support.Act as Regional Airspace Coordinator for DoN activities and the FAA.Provide full air traffic control services by direct interface with FAA and military/civil approachcontrols.FACSFAC VACAPES has authority to coordinate services and firing notices, issue weekly target andOPAREA schedules, and prescribe necessary additional regulations governing matters within theVACAPES Range Complex. They provide the Atlantic Fleet with surveillance and functional areasupport services to include scheduling, monitoring, and controlling DoD air, surface and subsurface unitsoperating in the Study Area for the VACAPES EIS/OEIS. As a designated Air Traffic Control facility,FACSFAC VACAPES is required to provide air traffic separation consistent with FAA guidelines toensure the safe, efficient, expeditious flow of air traffic. Radar surveillance and radio communicationsassists in providing area containment and air traffic control separation between high-performance militaryaircraft and the high volume of commercial aircraft transiting the numerous jet routes along the Atlanticcoast.Military aircraft originating from NAS Oceana are controlled by FACSFAC VACAPES upon enteringVACAPES airspace. Aircraft transiting from other areas are under control of the appropriate Air RouteTraffic Control Center (ARTCC) prior to transiting into VACAPES airspace. Clearance is provided tothe appropriate ARTCC for those aircraft transiting the VACAPES airspace using a grid system.3-421 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 TransportationThe Atlantic Fleet Exercise Coordination Center (AFECC) is a component of FACSFAC VACAPESresponsible for performing as the single point of contact for scheduling and coordinating all fleet trainingexercises. The AFECC coordinates and schedules airspace, sea space, targets, electronic warfare services,and other assets for all large scale exercises. AFECC is responsible for the coordination of operationalarea assignments, ranges, airspace, mobile sea range (MSR) assets, fixed and mobile targets, Large AreaTracking Range (LATR), electronic attack, and commercial air services. AFECC coordinates with allDoD, government and civilian agencies to ensure compliance with all requirements and regulations forthe safe use of ranges, assets, and services. Offshore SUA within the VACAPES Range Complex issummarized in Table 2.1-1 and depicted in Figure 1.1-1 and described in the following paragraphs.Table 2.2-1 depicts the current usage of these areas (DoN, 2006).W-72 is airspace assigned by FACSFAC VACAPES using an air grid system. Airspace not in use forwarning area activities is released to the FAA on a real-time basis. Any altitudes not being used by themilitary may be released to the FAA. Activities conducted in the area include tactical air combat training,exclusive air operations, basic flight maneuvers, Missile Exercise (MISSILEX), Tracking Exercise(TRACKEX), electronic warfare, air recovery, surveillance, carrier flight operations, carrier fly off,submarine warfare, air intercept control, balloon, chaff, photo, tactical air launch decoy, search andrescue, bombing exercises, law enforcement operations, and air-to-air refueling. Refer to Appendix D fordetailed descriptions of these training events (DoN, 2006).W-110 is SUA located offshore over surface areas 27, 33, 34, 39, 40, and 43 of the VACAPES OPAREA.FACSFAC VACAPES retains W-110 on a continuous basis and is the sole provider of control services inthe area. This area is neither requested nor released to FAA. This area is subject to 15 minutedeactivation by FACSFAC VACAPES to facilitate airway traffic at altitudes FL230 and below travelingon Atlantic Route 8. Additionally, FACSFAC VACAPES can coordinate altitudes above FL230 fromFAA, if required. Activities conducted in the area include carrier flight operations, search and rescue, lawenforcement operations, and transition between warning areas (DoN, 2006).Restricted Area (R-) 6606 and W-50 are associated with the Dam Neck Range and are locatedapproximately 5 nm east of the NAS Oceana TACAN between the coast at NAS Oceana Dam NeckAnnex and the 3 nm territorial sea limit. The airspace encompasses the surface to FL510. Airspace notused for military activities may be released to NAS Oceana Approach Control and FAA WashingtonCenter on a real-time basis. Activities conducted within R-6006 include parachute drops, Research,Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), drone transit and recovery, exclusive air operations,remotely piloted vehicle operations, and anti-submarine tactical air control (DoN, 2006).W-386 has been subdivided by FACSFAC VACAPES into sub-areas AIR-A through AIR-K. Inaddition, FACSFAC VACAPES has stabled three test tracks (A, B, and C), two air corridors (VICTORand LANGLEY), and six ingress/egress points (ATLIC, OUTES, DART, HEELS, TRAXX, andHORNT). Airspace not in use for warning area activities may be released to the FAA on a real-timebasis. Air-to-air, air-to-surface, surface-to-air, and surface-to-surface missile exercises, gunneryexercises, and rocket exercises using conventional ordnance may be authorized in W-386. Activitiesconducted in the area include ACM, tactical air combat training, exclusive air operations, carrier flightoperations, carrier fly off, balloon, chaff, photo, remotely piloted vehicles, tactical air-launched decoy,surface-to-surface and surface-to-air gunnery, and air-to-air refueling (DoN, 2006).W-387 A/B is retained by FACSFAC VACAPES on a continuous basis and is the sole provider of controlservices in the area. FACSFAC VACAPES also controls all inbound/outbound Atlantic Route 9 traffic.Activities conducted in W-387 A/B include carrier flight operations, carrier fly off, air-to-air refueling,airborne warning and control, search and rescue, law enforcement operations, and area transits. Noordnance is authorized (DoN, 2006).3-422 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISCivilianChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 TransportationClose coordination between military and civilian air traffic control facilities enables effective, real-time,joint use of the VACAPES Range Complex warning areas. Under these procedures, regardless of theschedule for the use of a military warning area, civilian aircraft may use warning area airspace, until amilitary aircraft is actually enroute to that area. FACSFAC VACAPES has the responsibility to ensurecivilian air carrier transit of SUA does not conflict with DoD operations and training. Civilian aircraftoperating under IFR clearances, authorized by the Washington ARTCC, normally fly on formal airwayroute structures. The Washington Control Center is the fifth busiest Air Traffic Control Center in theUnited States, handling nearly 5 million flights during 2004-2005, and covering an area of 165,000 squaremiles (DoN, 2006).All airspace outside the territorial limits is located in international airspace. Because the offshore airspaceuse Study Area is in international airspace, the procedures outlined in International Civil AviationAuthority (ICAO) Document 444, Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Services are followed. The FAA acts asthe U.S. agent for aeronautical information to the ICAO, and air traffic in the over-water Study Area ismanaged by the Washington ARTCC.3.13.1.6 Range Safety ProceduresAll range safety precautions and regulations contained in Commander, in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet(CINCLANTFLT) Instruction 3120.26, “Atlantic Fleet Operating Areas and Warning Areas,” apply in theVACAPES OPAREA. In addition, FACSFAC VACAPES imposes additional safety requirements. Thefollowing general rules apply to area clearances within FACSFAC VACAPES OPAREA: Dropping any ordnance, live or inert, or explosive fire is considered a hazardous event. All hazardousor exclusive operations and exercises conducted in the FACSFAC VACAPES OPAREA requireclearance from FACSFAC VACAPES. The firing or dropping of ordnance must be scheduled with FACSFAC VACAPES. Firing exercisesare not authorized without prior FACSFAC VACAPES approval. Small arms (munitions .50 caliber and under) qualifications on ships do not require FACSFACVACAPES approval. The unit conducting small arms fire is responsible for clearing their area. Non-hazardous/concurrent air, surface and subsurface operations, such as independent steamingexercise transits, navigation drills, deck landing qualifications, and helicopter operations do notrequire a specific clearance/message request. Flare drops are considered a non-hazardous event, but all airborne/surface units must contactFACSFAC VACAPES prior to dropping flares to prevent errant search-and-rescue reporting. Publications of NOTMARs and NOTAMs by the USCG and FAA. The Navy provides informationabout potentially hazardous activities planned for the VACAPES Range Complex.3.13.2 Environmental ConsequencesThe traffic analysis addresses air and ocean traffic in the VACAPES EIS/OEIS Study Area. The principalissue is the potential for existing or proposed military air or vessel traffic to affect existing transportationconditions. Impacts on traffic are considered with respect to the potential for disruption of transportationpattern and systems, and changes in existing levels of transportation safety.Impacts to air traffic might occur if an alternative has potential to result in an increase in the number offlights that could be accommodated within established operational procedures and flight patterns; requiresairspace modification; or results in an increase in air traffic that might increase collision potential betweenmilitary and non-participating civilian operations.3-423 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 TransportationImpacts on ocean vessel traffic might occur if the extent or degree to which an alternative would seriouslydisrupt the flow of commercial surface shipping or recreational fishing or boating. A serious disruptionoccurs when a vessel is unable to proceed to its intended destination due to exclusion from areas in theVACAPES Range Complex. However, the need to use alternative routes during the time of exclusiondoes not constitute a serious disruption.3.13.2.1 No Action AlternativeBoth military and non-military entities have been sharing the use of the airspace and ocean surface thatencompasses the VACAPES Range Complex for more than 30 years. Military, commercial, and generalaviation activities have established an operational co-existence consistent with federal, state, and localplans and policies and compatible with each interest’s varying objectives. The No Action Alternativeincludes training and testing operations that are and have been routinely conducted in the area fordecades. Ongoing, continuing operations identified in this EIS/OEIS will continue to use the existingoffshore OPAREA and Warning Areas. Although the nature and intensity of use varies over time and byindividual area, the continuing training operations represent precisely the kinds of operations for whichthese areas were created (i.e., those that present a hazard to other vessels).Currently the Navy uses the VACAPES OPAREA for 1,400 steaming days per year. There are 5,966annual fixed-wing and 1,743 helicopter sorties in the OPAREA. None of the alternatives includeproposed airspace modifications and would not change the existing relationship of the Navy’s Special UseAirspace with federal airways, uncharted visual flight routes, and airport related air traffic operations.FACSFAC VACAPES is the principal controlling authority for activities within the VACAPES RangeComplex. Through close coordination with the FAA, FACSFAC VACAPES ensures that hazardousactivities are carefully scheduled to avoid conflicts with civilian activities and safety standards aremaintained while allowing the maximum amount of civilian access to airspace and sea space.The stressors from proposed activities that would likely impact transportation activities stem fromincreases in vessel movement, aircraft overflights, military expended materials, and the associatedincrease in training activities; however, conflicts in the VACAPES Range Complex are handled through asingle point of contact system that ensures the needs of both the military and civilian sectors are met.Military activities are either scheduled or announced ahead of execution or take place in an area that isdesignated for exclusive military use.Implementation of the No Action Alternative would have no impact on transportation resources in U.S.Territory. Further, implementation of the No Action Alternative would not cause harm to transportationresources in non-territorial waters.3.13.2.2 Alternative 1The Navy can accomplish the proposed activities associated with Alternative 1 without modifications orneed for additional designated ocean or airspace. Alternative 1 includes introduction of Organic MineCountermeasures (OMCM) operations that would result in additional restrictions to civilian traffic duringOMCM operational periods. The addition of OMCM to the current Mine Countermeasures Exercisesconducted in the VACAPES OPAREA would likely result in an additional 20 steaming days per year thatthe Navy would be operating in the training area and that civilians might be restricted from the existingoperational areas. This is a 1.4 percent increase from the current conditions.The proposed increase in training operations, force structure changes, and enhanced range capabilitiesassociated with implementation of Alternative 1 do not significantly impact sea or ocean spacetransportation in or near the VACAPES Study Area.3-424 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 TransportationImplementation of Alternative 1 would have no impact on transportation resources in U.S. Territory.Further, implementation of Alternative 1 would not cause harm to transportation resources in nonterritorialwaters.3.13.2.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)The potential impacts to transportation assets associated with implementation of Alternative 2 would besimilar to those described for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 includes implementation of Alternative 1 withadditional increases in operations (see Table 2.2-4), with the exception of an 85 percent decrease in HEbombs dropped, and designation of Mine Warfare Training Areas within the VACAPES Study Area toprovide additional support during training events. There is an expected increase of 20 steaming days peryear due to Navy training. This is a 1.4 percent increase over the current time spent in the OPAREA.The placement of both temporary and permanent non-explosive mine shapes on or near the sea floorwould not pose a navigation or fishing hazard. Mooring lines would only be left in place for as long asthe mine shape is in the water (Section 2.2.5).Implementation of Alternative 2 would have no impact on transportation resources in U.S. Territory.Further, implementation of Alternative 2 would not cause harm to transportation resources in nonterritorialwaters.3.13.3 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThere are no unavoidable significant environmental effects as a result of implementation of the No ActionAlternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2.3.13.4 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)As summarized in Table 3.14-2, the environmental effects of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1,and Alternative 2 on transportation would have no impact.3-425 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.13 TransportationTABLE 3.13-2SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ONTRANSPORTATION IN THE VACAPES RANGE COMPLEXAlternative andStressorNo ActionVessel Movements(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Military ExpendedMaterialsImpact ConclusionAlternative 1Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Military ExpendedMaterialsImpact ConclusionAlternative 2Vessel Movements(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Military ExpendedMaterialsImpact ConclusionNEPA(U.S. Territory)Military, commercial, and generalaviation activities have established anoperational co-existence consistentwith federal, state, and local plans andpolicies and compatible with eachinterest’s varying objectives.Activities under the No ActionAlternative include activities that areand have been routinely conducted inthe area for decades.Implementation the No ActionAlternative would have no impact ontransportation resources in U.S.Territory.The Navy can accomplish theproposed activities associated withAlternative 1 without modifications orneed for additional designated ocean orairspace. The increased trainingoperations do not conflict with anyairspace use plans, policies, andcontrols.Implementation Alternative 1 wouldhave no impact on transportationresources in U.S. Territory.The Navy can accomplish theproposed activities associated withAlternative 2 without modifications orneed for additional designated ocean orairspace. The increased trainingoperations do not conflict with anyairspace use plans, policies, andcontrols.Implementation Alternative 2 wouldhave no impact on transportationresources in U.S. Territory.EO 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Military, commercial, and general aviationactivities have established an operational coexistenceconsistent with federal, state, andlocal plans and policies and compatible witheach interest’s varying objectives. Activitiesunder the No Action Alternative includeactivities that are and have been routinelyconducted in the area for decades.Implementation of the No Action Alternativewould not cause harm to transportationresources in non-territorial waters.The Navy can accomplish the proposedactivities associated with Alternative 1without modifications or need for additionaldesignated ocean or airspace. The increasedtraining operations do not conflict with anyairspace use plans, policies, and controls.Implementation of Alternative 1 would notcause harm to transportation resources in nonterritorialwaters.The Navy can accomplish the proposedactivities associated with Alternative 2without modifications or need for additionaldesignated ocean or airspace. The increasedtraining operations do not conflict with anyairspace use plans, policies, and controls.Implementation of Alternative 2 would notcause harm to transportation resources in nonterritorialwaters.3-426 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.14 DEMOGRAPHICSChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.14 Demographics3.14.1 Introduction and MethodsDemographics were assessed through the identification and evaluation of population trends, age, race andethnicity, poverty levels, and education. The study area for demographics included the states ofDelaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.3.14.1.1 Assessment Methods and Data UsedThis section was prepared primarily by compiling and evaluating existing information supplied by theU.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau), state and local governmental agencies, and local organizations asshown in the reference section.People do not live within the VACAPES Range Complex in non-territorial waters more than 12 nm fromthe shore. Therefore, demographics were considered only from a NEPA perspective and were notevaluated in accordance with EO 12114.Impacts to demographics were assessed in terms of their direct effects on populations and indirect effectson related social resources such as housing. The level of significance of impacts can vary depending onthe location of a proposed action. For example, if an action would create 10 jobs in an urban setting, theimpact may not be noticeable, but the creation of the same 10 jobs might have significant impacts in arural region. If an alternative would result in substantial shifts in population trends, or substantiallychange regional spending and earning patterns, it would be significant.3.14.1.2 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsAspects of the proposed actions likely to act as stressors to demographics were identified by conducting adetailed analysis of the warfare areas, operations, and specific activities included in the alternatives. Nopotential stressors to demographics were identified.3.14.2 Affected EnvironmentPopulation TrendsDuring the period April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006: The population of Delaware increased by 8.9 percent; Maryland population increased by 6.0 percent; Virginia population increased by 8.0 percent; North Carolina increased by 10.1 percent; and The population of the United States experienced a 6.5 percent increase (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).In the United States, there were 355,866 Navy and Marine Corps personnel in active duty militaryinstallations in 2002 (the latest year reported by the U.S. Census Bureau). Delaware had 17 Maryland had15,853, Virginia had 52,120, and North Carolina had 43,522. Civilian personnel affiliated with the Navyand Marine Corps on military installations in 2002 included 177,695 in the United States, none inDelaware, 15,524 in Maryland, 34,492 in Virginia, and 7,281 in North Carolina (U.S. Census Bureau,2003).Age StructureThe latest year for which age distribution data are available is 2005. In that year:In Delaware, 6.6 percent of the population was under the age of 5, 23.2 percent was under the age of18, and 13.3 percent was over the age of 65.3-427 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.14 Demographics Maryland had 6.8 percent of the population under the age of 5, 25.1 percent under the age of 18, and11.5 percent over the age of 65. Virginia’s population under the age of 5 was 6.8 percent, 24.1 percent was under the age of 18, and11.4 percent was over the age of 65. North Carolina had 7.0 percent of the population under the age of 5, 24.7 percent under the age of 18,and 12.1 percent over the age of 65. The age distributions for states near the VACAPES study area were similar to those of the entireUnited States, which included 6.8 percent under the age of 5, 24.8 percent under the age of 18, and12.4 percent over the age of 65 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).Race and EthnicityTable 3.14-1 shows the self-reported race and ethnicity of residents of the states of Delaware, Maryland,Virginia, and North Carolina, and the entire the United States. Totals would exceed 100 percent becauseof individuals reporting race and ethnicity in multiple categories (for example, reporting in both “white”and “white, not Hispanic”). The populations of each state show the same high diversity of the entirenation, but with somewhat higher percentages of the populations in all fours states identifying themselvesas Black, and somewhat lower percentages identifying themselves as White, Hispanic, or Latino.Race/EthnicityTABLE 3.14-1RACE AND ETHNICITY FOR STUDY AREA STATESDelaware(percent)Maryland(percent)Virginia(percent)NorthCarolina(percent)UnitedStates(percent)White 74.9 a/ 64.0 73.6 74.1 80.2Black 20.7 29.3 19.9 21.8 12.8American Indian or Alaska Native 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.3 1.0Asian 2.7 4.8 4.6 1.8 4.3Native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2Persons reporting 2 or more races 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.0 1.5Hispanic or Latino origin 6.0 5.7 6.0 6.4 14.4White, not Hispanic 69.6 59.2 68.2 68.3 66.9a/ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007. All values are from 2005.Poverty LevelsThe percent of the population living below the poverty level in the United States and in the states ofDelaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina is provided in Table 3.14-2. By this measure,residents of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia are doing better than average economically, but NorthCarolina had a greater proportion of residents in poverty than the national average.TABLE 3.14-2PERCENT OF POPULATION WITH INCOMES BELOW THE POVERTY LEVELDelaware(percent)Maryland(percent)Virginia(percent)North Carolina(percent)United States(percent)9.6 a/ 9.2 9.5 13.8 12.7a/ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007. All values are from 2004.EducationIn the year 2000, the percentage of households in Delaware that spoke a primary language other thanEnglish was 9.5 percent. Maryland households that spoke a primary language other than English totaled3-428 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.14 Demographics12.6 percent. In Virginia, the value was 11.1 percent and in North Carolina, it was 8.0 percent. Thepercentage of households in the United States that spoke a language other than English as the primaryhousehold language was 17.9 percent.Except in North Carolina, the education levels achieved by residents are better than those of the UnitedStates population. In Delaware, 82.6 percent of the population graduated from high school and 25 percent held abachelor’s degree or higher. In Maryland, 86.4 percent of the population graduated from high school and 30.6 percent held abachelor’s degree or higher. In Virginia, 81.5 percent of the population graduated from high school and 29.5 percent held aBachelor’s degree or higher. In North Carolina, 78.1 percent of the population graduated from high school and 22.5 percent held abachelor’s degree or higher. In the United States, 80.4 percent of the population graduated from high school and 24.4 percent helda bachelor’s degree or higher (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).3.14.3 Environmental ConsequencesImpacts to demographics were assessed in terms of their direct effects on local populations and relatedeffects such as jobs and education within the study area. Demographic impacts would be significant if analternative resulted in a substantial shift in factors such as population trends, job availability, orcommunity concerns such as poverty and education.3.14.3.1 No Action AlternativeThe No Action Alternative would continue current Navy practices and operations, including surgeoperations consistent with the Fleet Readiness Training Plan. Training activities conducted within theVACAPES Study Area would continue at current levels, as shown in Table 2.2-4. This alternative wouldnot result in changes to either the local population or job availability; therefore, there would not be anyimpacts to demographics.3.14.3.2 Alternative 1Alternative 1 would not require the basing or relocation of additional personnel within the study area.The features of Alternative 1 that would increase or modify training operations and implement forcestructure changes would be achieved within current staffing levels of the installations that support therange complex. As a result, none of the Alternative 1 elements would result in a change to demographicswithin the study area. There would not be any shifts in population trends; age, race, or ethnicitydistribution; poverty levels; or education.3.14.3.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)Alternative 2 would not result in any personnel changes within the study area. The features of Alternative2 that would increase or modify training operations and implement force structure changes would beachieved within current staffing levels of the installations that support the Range Complex. This wouldinclude the installation and use of additional mine warfare training areas in the lower Chesapeake Bay.As a result, none of the Alternative 2 elements would result in a change to demographics within the StudyArea. There would not be any shifts in population trends; age, race, or ethnicity distribution; povertylevels; or education.3-429 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.14 Demographics3.14.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThere would not be any unavoidable significant environmental effects as a result of implementation of theNo Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2.3.14.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)As summarized in Table 3.14-3, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would nothave substantial environmental impacts on demographics.TABLE 3.14-3SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ONDEMOGRAPHICS IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREAAlternative andStressorNo Action AlternativeNoneImpact conclusionAlternative 1NoneImpact conclusionAlternative 2NoneImpact conclusionNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)No impact on demographic characteristicssuch as population trends; age, race, orethnicity distribution; poverty levels; oreducation.No impact on demographics in U.S.territory.No impact on demographic characteristicssuch as population trends; age, race, orethnicity distribution; poverty levels; oreducation.No impact on demographics in U.S.territory.No impact on demographic characteristicssuch as population trends; age, race, orethnicity distribution; poverty levels; oreducation.No impact on demographics in U.S.territory.EO 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Not evaluated because this region isoutside the demographics study area.Not evaluated because this region isoutside the demographics study area.Not evaluated because this region isoutside the demographics study area.Not evaluated because this region isoutside the demographics study area.Not evaluated because this region isoutside the demographics study area.Not evaluated because this region isoutside the demographics study area.3-430 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.15 REGIONAL ECONOMYChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional Economy3.15.1 Introduction and MethodsRegional economy is assessed through evaluation of economic factors including industry, commercialfishing, tourism, and recreational fishing. The study area for assessment of the regional economyincludes the states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.3.15.1.1 Assessment Methods and Data UsedThis section was prepared primarily by compiling and evaluating existing information supplied by theU.S. Census Bureau, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National MarineFisheries Service (NMFS), state and local governmental agencies, and local organizations as shown in thereference section. Data were collected on commercial fishery landings, types of fishing gear used, andfishing effort. NMFS collects data regarding fisheries, target species, landed tonnage, and gear types bystate. It is important to note that the state boundaries and borders of the operating areas (OPAREA) arenot congruent and as a result some state information is not relevant to the discussion of the individualOPAREAs.People do not live within the VACAPES Range Complex in non-territorial waters more than 12 nm fromthe shore. Therefore, regional economics were considered only from a NEPA perspective and were notevaluated in accordance with EO 12114.3.15.1.2 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsImpacts to the regional economy were assessed in terms of their direct effects on the local economysectors of industry, commercial fishing, tourism, and recreational fishing. If significant direct effectswere found, the analysis would be expanded to consider indirect effects to related socioeconomicresources, such as earnings, income, and transportation). If impacts would result in substantial shifts inearning, spending, or access trends, such that they would affect regional spending and earning patterns,they would be important. Such impacts might be experienced if commercial or recreational activitieswere denied access to areas where they previously had occurred, or if substantial additional areas wereopened to these activities.Stressors to the regional economy would include changes in intensity or duration of training activities thatwould affected the abilities of recreational or commercial boaters and fishermen to harvest in areas and atlevels of production that have traditionally done so. Table 3.15-1 depicts aspects of the proposed actionsthat are likely to act as stressors to the regional economy. These stressors were identified by conducting adetailed analysis of the warfare areas, operations, and specific activities included in the alternatives.3.15.2 Affected Environment3.15.2.1 IndustryThe 2002 U.S. Census indicates that the greatest numbers of establishments in the United States were inthe retail trade industry. The states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina reflect thattrend, with the retail trade industry leading the states with the greatest numbers of establishments (3,727,19,394, 28,914, and 35,851 respectively).The commercial fishing industry was included in the category of “other services (except publicadministration).” The fishing industry, which is the industry most likely to be affected by the alternativesanalyzed in this EIS/OEIS, is not among the most lucrative industries in the study area. Of the top tenindustries for the states adjacent to the study area, “Other Services” (of which fishing is a sub-category)appeared to consistently rank 4th or 5th in number of establishments. Specifically, in Delaware it ranked3-431 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional Economy5th with 1,626, in Maryland it ranked 4th with 10,217, in Virginia it ranked 5th with 14,583, and in NorthCarolina it ranked 5th with 13,826).TABLE 3.15-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO REGIONAL ECONOMY RESOURCESWarfare Area and OperationTraining AreasVessel Movements(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Military Expended MaterialsMine Warfare (MIW)Mine countermeasures exercise (MCM) Lower Chesapeake Bay Mine countermeasures exercise (MCM) W-50A/C, W-386, W-72 Mine neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing exercise (air-to-surface) (at sea)W-386 (Air-K), W-72A(Air-3B), W-72A/B Missile exercise (MISSILEX) (air-to-surface) W-386 (Air-K), W-72A Gunnery exercise (GUNEX) (air-to-surface)W-386 (Air-K), W-72A,W-72A (Air-1A), W-50C GUNEX (surface-to-surface) boat W-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (surface-to-surface) ship W-386, W-72 Laser targeting W-386 (Air-K) Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure/MaritimeInterception Operations (VBSS/MIO)- ShipVACAPES OPAREA VBSS/MIO- Helo VACAPES OPAREA Air Warfare (AW)Air combat maneuver (ACM) W-72A (Air-2A/B, 3A/B) GUNEX (air-to-air) W-72A MISSILEX (air-to-air)W-386 (Air D, G, H, K),W-72AGUNEX (surface-to-air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (surface-to-air) W-386 (Air D, G, H, K) Air intercept control (AIC) W-386, W-72 Detect to engage (DTE) W-386, W-72 Strike Warfare (STW)HARM missile exercise W-386 (Air E, F, I, J) 3-432 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional EconomyTABLE 3.15-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO REGIONAL ECONOMY RESOURCES(Continued)Warfare Area and OperationTraining AreasVessel Movements(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Military Expended MaterialsAmphibious Warfare (AMW)FIREX with Integrated Maritime PortableAcoustic Scoring and Simulator System(IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)W-386 (7C/D, 8C/D), W-72(1C1/2) (Preferred Areas), W-386 (5C/D) (Secondary Areas )Chaff exercise - aircraft W-386, W-386 (Air-K), W-72 Chaff exercise - ship W-386, W-72 Flare exercise - aircraft W-386, W-386 (Air-K), W-72 Electronic combat (EC) operations - aircraft W-386 (Air-K) EC operations - ship VACAPES OPAREA Test and EvaluationShipboard Electronic Systems EvaluationFacility (SESEF) utilizationVACAPES OPAREAThe United States cruise industry has experienced steady growth in numbers of passengers, with anaverage, annual growth from 1980 to 2004 of 8.2 percent (CLIA, 2005). The cruise industry contributed$35.7 billion to the United States economy in 2006. The total income generated by the cruise industry in2006 included purchases of goods and services (such as air transportation, food and beverages, and shipmaintenance and refurbishment) and cruise line and port operations. From this source, Delaware annuallyrealizes an income of about $10 million, Maryland realizes an income of $101 million, Virginia realizesan income of $122 million, and North Carolina realizes an income of $108 million (CLIA, 2006).3.15.2.2 Commercial FishingThe Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) is responsible for management of fisheries infederal waters that occur predominately off the mid-Atlantic coast. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, andNorth Carolina are some of the states with voting representation on the council.The MAFMC develops fishery management plans (FMP) to aid in the process of managing andconserving fisheries within council purview. Fishery management practices are in force for severalfisheries and are applicable both to commercial and recreational fishing.3-433 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional EconomyThe objectives of the FMPs vary, but they are generally geared toward ensuring the long-termsustainability of the subject fish species and meeting specific management goals. FMPs generally utilizegeographic and seasonal fishery closures, catch limits and quotas, size and age limits, gear restrictions,and access controls to manage the fishery resources.The MAFMC has developed six FMPs to promote the long-term health and stability of the managedfisheries (MAFMC, 2007). These FMPs include the following fisheries:Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish;Bluefish;Dogfish;Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog;Summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass; andTilefish.Additional FMPs are in place for certain highly migratory species. These are applicable in federal watersoff the North Carolina coast and include the following species (NMFS Final Consolidated AtlanticMigratory Species Fishery Management Plan, 2006):Atlantic swordfish;Atlantic tuna;Atlantic sharks; andAtlantic billfish.Both the MAFMC and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) manage fisheries infederal waters off the coast of North Carolina. FMPs developed by the SAFMC (SAFMC, 2007) thatapply to North Carolina include the following fisheries:South Atlantic snapper/grouper;Coastal migratory pelagics (mackerels);Shrimp fishery;Spiny lobster;Golden crab;Coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom habitat;Sargassum;Dolphin/wahoo; andHabitat.3.15.2.3 State LandingsThe National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) incorporates commercial landing data into the NMFSStatistics and Economics Division databases. Sources include comprehensive surveys of all coastalstates’ landings through a system of cooperative state and federal collection systems. The data includelanding weighout reports, state-mandated fishery or mollusk trip-tickets from seafood dealers, shipboardand portside interviews, federal logbooks of fishery catch and effort, and biological sampling of catches(NMFS, 2007d).The NMFS Fisheries Statistics Division collects data and coordinates data collection efforts with state andfederal agencies. Data are collected through a multi-survey method that includes telephone surveys ofhouseholds and for-hire boat operators, shore fishers, and state and federal data collection programs.Collected statistics are then integrated and disseminated through databases that are made available toother agencies and the public. Landing data do not indicate location of harvest, as species may be takenoffshore from another state, but reported in the state in which the fishermen landed.3-434 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISDelawareChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional EconomyAs shown in Table 3.15-2, the annual commercial landings and associated revenues in Delaware havebeen declining. The 7,140,238 pounds (worth $7,660,123) that were produced in 2001 decreased to a lowof 4,287,586 pounds (valued at $5,418,902) in 2004. The average over the five-year period was5,431,349 pounds worth an annual average of $6,092,851.There are no major ports that report commercial fishery landings for the State of Delaware. The NMFSFisheries Statistics and Economics Division (NMFS, 2007f) reports that for the year 2006: Delaware had 705,000 pounds of fish harvested (valued at $1,059,000) within 0 to 3 miles from theshore. Shellfish harvested within 0 to 3 miles from the Delaware shore equaled 3,553,000 pounds (valued at$4,314,000). The 2006 Delaware harvest of fish from 3 to 200 miles from shore was 103,000 pounds (valued at$196,000). The shellfish harvest from 3 to 200 miles was 20,000 pounds (valued at $123,000). Neither fish nor shellfish had a reportable harvest on the high seas.MarylandTABLE 3.15-2DELAWARE COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (2001-2005), ALL SPECIES a/Year Pounds Dollars2001 7,140,238 $7,660,1232002 5,857,268 $6,066,8482003 5,017,922 $5,204,0882004 4,287,586 $5,418,9022005 4,853,732 $6,114,293Total 27,156,746 $30,464,254a/ Source: NMFS, 2007e.Maryland annual commercial landings during the years 2001 through 2005 fluctuated, with a substantialyear 2005 increase after decreases for the years 2003 and 2004 (Table 3.15-3). The annual weightaveraged 55,018,522 pounds, with associated average revenue of $53,321,551.The only major port reporting commercial fishery landings for the State of Maryland was Ocean City. In2006, there were 10.3 million pounds of commercial harvest that resulted in revenue of $13.3 million.Comparatively, in 2001, Ocean City reported a commercial harvest of 13.2 million pounds and revenue of$8.6 million.The NMFS reports that for the year 2006: Maryland had 11,487,000 pounds of fish harvest (valued at $7,925,000) within 0 to 3 miles from theshore. Shellfish harvested within 0 to 3 miles from the Maryland shore equaled 30,312,000 pounds (valued at$32,784,000).The 2006 Maryland harvest of fish from 3 to 200 miles from shore was 1,076,000 pounds (valued at$1,867,000). The shellfish harvest from 3 to 200 miles was 8,341,000 (valued at $10,969,000). Neither fish nor shellfish had a reportable harvest on the high seas.3-435 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional EconomyVirginiaTABLE 3.15-3MARYLAND COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (2001-2005), ALL SPECIES a/Year Pounds Dollars2001 55,539,093 $55,590,8582002 53,184,660 $49,013,0392003 49,349,923 $49,033,2442004 49,558,406 $49,300,7822005 67,460,529 $63,669,831Total 275,092,611 $266,607,754a/ Source: NMFS, 2007e.Over the five-year period ending in 2005, commercial landings ranged between a high of561,792,162 pounds in 2001 and a low of 441,493,030 pounds in 2005 (Table 3.15-4). The five-yearaverage was 474,842,197 pounds, with an average value of $137,843,877.The state of Virginia has three major ports, but consistent reports of commercial harvests were notavailable. The last year that Cape Charles-Oyster reported commercial harvest was in 1998, with 2.6 millionpounds ($1.4 million). Chincoteague reported 4.2 million pounds in 2006 and 2.6 million pounds in 2001 ($11.7 million and$2.6 million respectively). The Hampton Roads area reported 13.2 million pounds in 2006 and 28.0 million pounds in 2001($51.0 million and $56.9 million respectively).North CarolinaTABLE 3.15-4VIRGINIA COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (2001-2005), ALL SPECIES a/Year Pounds Dollars2001 561,792,162 $119,600,4702002 442,489,524 $123,274,7082003 446,827,713 $130,641,0502004 481,608,557 $160,441,7402005 441,493,030 $155,261,417Total 2,374,210,986 $689,219,385a/ Source: NMFS, 2007e.Over the five-year period ending in 2005, commercial landings ranged between a high of160,276,917 pounds in 2002 and a low of 79,152,597 pounds in 2005 (Table 3.15-5). The five-yearaverage was 130,635,166 pounds and the average annual value was $80,023,902.Several ports in North Carolina report commercial fish landings, but consistent reports of commercialharvests were not available.In 2006, Beaufort-Morehead City reported 6.7 million pounds of commercial harvest with revenue of$10.9 million. The 2001 harvest was 67.5 million pounds with a value of $17.9 million.3-436 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional Economy The last year that Elizabeth City had a reportable commercial harvest was 1996. That harvest was 6.5million pounds valued at $5.4 million. Oriental-Vandemere had a 2006 commercial harvest of 4.3 million pounds and revenue of $5.5million. In 2001, the harvest was 4.9 million pounds, valued at $6.9 million. Sneads Ferry-Swansboro reported 2.6 million pounds in 2006 and revenues of $5.5 million. In 2001,the harvest was 2.8 million pounds valued at $5.6 million. The first reportable commercial harvest forSneads-Ferry was in 2000, and there was not sufficient commercial harvest to report in 2004 or 2005. Wanchese-Stumpy Point reported 26.5 million pounds and revenue of $21.7 million in 2006. In 2001,the harvest was 31.9 million pounds and worth $26.1 million.The NMFS reports that for the year 2006:North Carolina fish harvest within 0 to 3 miles from shore was 12,375,000 pounds (valued at$10,487,000). The shellfish harvest within 0 to 3 miles from shore was 31,851,000 pounds (valued at $35,766,000). The fish harvest from 3 to 200 miles from shore was 23,201,000 pounds (valued at $24,164,000). The shellfish harvest from 3 to 200 miles from shore was 1,214,000 pounds (valued at $1,468,000). Neither fish nor shellfish had a reportable harvest on the high seas.TABLE 3.15-5NORTH CAROLINA COMMERCIAL LANDINGS (2001-2005), ALL SPECIES a/Year Pounds Dollars2001 137,893,280 $85,971,4872002 160,276,917 $92,260,7832003 139,401,486 $84,925,7172004 136,451,548 $77,138,4982005 79,152,597 $59,823,025Total 653,175,828 400,119,510a/ Source: NMFS, 2007e.3.15.2.4 Fishing GearDelawareThe principal gear used to harvest the fish and shellfish landed on the Delaware coast is pots and traps.Between 2001 and 2005, almost 60 percent of the commercial harvest landed in the state was capturedusing while pots and traps (Table 3.15-6).TABLE 3.15-62001-2005 AVERAGE ANNUALCOMMERCIAL LANDINGS BY GEAR TYPE – DELAWARE a/Gear TypeRevenue Percent of(dollars) TotalPots and traps $3,619,958 60Dredge 1,282,596 21Gill nets 726,083 12Hand lines 49,073 >1Other gear types 415,141 7Total all gear $6,092,851 100 b/a/ Source: NMFS, 2007c.b/ Numbers may not total exactly because of rounding.3-437 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISMarylandChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional EconomyThe principal gear used to harvest fish and shellfish landed on the Maryland coast are pots and traps, anddredge. Between 2001 and 2005, almost 47 percent of the commercial harvest landed in the state wascaptured using pots and traps, and dredge was used to capture 14 percent (Table 3.15-7).VirginiaTABLE 3.15-72001-2005 AVERAGE ANNUALCOMMERCIAL LANDINGS BY GEAR TYPE - MARYLAND a/Gear TypeRevenue(dollars)Percentof TotalPots and traps $25,026,857 47Dredge 7,443,334 14Pound nets 3,735,377 7Gill nets 2,322,862 4Otter trawl 1,080,853 2Tongs 1,057,936 2Scrapes 982,110 2Hand lines 633,911 1Long lines 150,600 >1Other gear types 10,887,711 20Total all gear $53,321,551 100 b/a/ Source: NMFS, 2007c.b/ Numbers may not total exactly because of rounding.The principal gear used to harvest the fish and shellfish landed on the Virginia coast are dredge, seines,and pots and traps. As shown in Table 3.15-8, between 2001 and 2005, almost 47 percent of thecommercial harvest landed in the state was captured using dredge, while seines and pots and traps wereused to capture 17 and 16 percent, respectively.North CarolinaThe principal gear used to harvest fish and shellfish landed on the North Carolina coast are pots and traps,otter trawl, and gill nets. Between 2001 and 2005, almost 37 percent of the commercial harvest landed inthe state was captured using pots and traps, while otter trawl and gill nets were used to capture 26 and12 percent, respectively (Table 3.15-9).3.15.2.5 TourismDelawareAlthough 8.1 million visitors traveled to Delaware in 2005, the state is ranked 47th among the48 contiguous states in total visitor volume (TIA, 2006). There are not significant numbers of visitorswho report traveling to the state to boat or sail (Delaware Economic Development Office, 2006).MarylandMaryland tourist spending in 2005 was $10.7 billion, supporting 115,800 jobs (Maryland Office ofTourism Development, 2006). Three percent of visitors to the state participated in boating or sailingactivities (Maryland Tourism Development Board, 2006).3-438 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional EconomyTABLE 3.15-82001-2005 AVERAGE ANNUALCOMMERCIAL LANDINGS BY GEAR TYPE - VIRGINIA a/Gear TypeRevenue(dollars)Percent ofTotalDredge $64,636,162 47Seines 23,951,423 17Pots and traps 21,962,533 16Otter trawl 11,631,548 8Gill nets 7,817,808 6Pound nets 4,088,161 3Tongs 1,801,871 1Hand lines 722,585 1Long lines 133,575 >1By hand 59,892 >1Other gear types 1,038,319 1Total all gear $137,843,877 100 b/a/ Source: NMFS, 2007c.b/ Numbers may not total exactly because of rounding.TABLE 3.15-92001-2005 AVERAGE ANNUALCOMMERCIAL LANDINGS BY GEAR TYPE – NORTH CAROLINA a/Gear TypeRevenue(dollars)Percent ofTotalPots and traps $29,370,184 38Otter trawl 20,817,604 27Gill nets 9,359,565 12Hand lines 3,620,112 5Seines 3,262,239 4Troll lines 2,398,540 3By hand 1,875,530 2Pound nets 1,741,803 2Rakes 1,517,657 2Dredge 1,489,505 2Tongs and grabs 497,397 1Bag nets 352,149

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISVirginiaChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional EconomyVirginia receives 54 million domestic visitors a year (2004-2005) (Virginia Tourism Corporation, 2007),who annually spend about $16.5 billion in the state (Virginia Tourism Authority, 2006). Data on thenumbers of visitors who participate in boating or sailing activities were not available.North CarolinaIn 2005, 45 million visitors to North Carolina contributed $15 billion to the state economy (NorthCarolina Department of Commerce, 2007). Tourism is more important to Dare County than to any othercounty in North Carolina, with half of all jobs in the county directly dependent on tourist spending. Halfof all lodging sales in this area occur in the high-tourism months of June, July, and August (Palmquist, etal., 2002).About 5 percent of domestic visitors to the coastal regions of the state who were polled in a visitor profilesurvey cited boating or sailing as the reason for their visit. Nearly 10 percent visited to hunt or fish,which includes saltwater fishing. Spring and summer months accounted for the highest visitation to thisarea, with 61 percent of coastal visits occurring during this time (North Carolina Division of Tourism,Film and Sports Development 2005).3.15.2.6 Recreational FishingThe NMFS is required to collect statistics on marine recreational fishing. The information is obtainedthrough recreational fishing participant telephone surveys, access site angler intercept surveys, a samplingof angler trips, and voluntary sampling of angler trips by participants. Additionally, through survey, thenumber of boat trips and catch per trip are compiled to contribute to the total catch conclusions (NMFS,2007b).The NMFS 2006 preliminary report on commercial and recreational landings indicates that, in 2005,7.8 million people participated in marine recreational fishing in the Atlantic Ocean (NMFS, 2007a).These people took more than 52 million trips and caught almost 243 million fish. Almost 30 percent ofthe total Atlantic catch came on saltwater trips that fished primarily in the state territorial seas, and60 percent came on trips that fished primarily in inland waters.Several agencies began the coordinated publication of state-specific recreational fishing informationalbrochures in April 2007. They include state fish, game, parks, and recreation agencies; Division ofMarine Fisheries; SAFMC; Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission; U.S. Department ofCommerce; and NOAA. Through the state brochures, the following recreational fishing statistics werereported:Delaware reports that 45 percent of the recreational anglers lived outside the state, 53 percent of thesaltwater fishing trips were taken via private or rental boat, and 43 percent of the recreational fishingwas conducted from the shore. Only 1 percent of the saltwater fishing trips were taken by charterboat. Five percent were in federal waters, 14 percent were in state waters, and 81 percent were inland.Maryland reports that 24 percent of the recreational anglers lived outside the state, 81 percent of thesaltwater fishing trips were taken via private or rental boat, and 34 percent of the recreational fishingwas conducted from the shore. Five percent of the saltwater fishing trips were taken by charter boat.Three percent were in federal waters, eight percent were in state waters, and 91 percent were inland.Virginia reports that 23 percent of the recreational anglers lived outside the state, 63 percent of thesaltwater fishing trips were taken via private or rental boat, and 36 percent of the recreational fishingwas conducted from the shore. One percent of the saltwater fishing trips were taken by charter boat.Three percent were in federal waters, 18 percent were in state waters, and 79 percent were inland.3-440 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional Economy North Carolina reports that 37 percent of the recreational anglers lived outside the state, 35 percent ofthe saltwater fishing trips were taken via private or rental boat, and 61 percent of the recreationalfishing was conducted from the shore. Four percent of the saltwater fishing trips were taken by charterboat. Ten percent were in federal waters, 65 percent were in state waters, and 25 percent were inland.Favored fishing areas change over time with changes in fish populations and communities, changes inpreferred target species, or changes in fishing modes and styles. Popular fishing sites are characterized byrelative ease of access, ability to anchor or secure the boat, and abundant presence of target fish.Fishermen focusing on areas of bottom relief not only catch reef-associated fish but also coastal pelagicspecies that may be attracted to the habitat. A detailed discussion of fishing habitat can be found inAppendix F (Essential Fish Habitat).3.15.3 Environmental ConsequencesThe environmental consequences of the regional economy are assessed in terms of the direct impacts onthe local economy. Regional economic impacts could occur if the direct effects on industry, commercialfishing, tourism, or recreational fishing from alternative chosen for implementation resulted in asubstantial shift in regional spending or earning patterns.3.15.3.1 No Action AlternativeThe No Action Alternative would continue current Navy practices. Training operations and major rangeevents would continue at current levels, and there would not be any impacts to industry, commercialfishing, tourism, or recreational fishing. The inshore areas of the VACAPES OPAREA are particularlyheavily traveled as they occur near commercial ports in both Delaware and Virginia; however, the areasin which training would occur (as depicted in Figures 2.2-1, 2.2-2, and 2.2-3) would not be in the vesseltransit lanes and Navy traffic would not interfere with commercial shipping. Under NEPA, the No ActionAlternative in U.S. territory would have no effect on the regional economy.3.15.3.2 Alternative 1Alternative 1 would increase or modify training operations and implement force structure changes. Thestressors to industry, commercial fishing, tourism, or recreational fishing that could be associated withthese changes would be related to vessel movements, aircraft overflights, and military expendedmaterials. Actions associated with Alternative 1 would not impact the primarily land-based industries inthe VACAPES EIS/OEIS Study Area.Training missions in the VACAPES Study Area that are potentially incompatible with civiliancommercial or recreational activities already are conducted in restricted areas designed for that activity.The Navy has established procedures to ensure users of joint use areas are cleared before exercises begin.These procedures would ensure that the proposed actions associated with Alternative 1 would not result inimpacts to industry, state landings, fishing gear, tourism, or recreational fishing in the study area.Industry –The fishing industry is reflected in the category of “other services (except publicadministration).” Of the 537,576 establishments (companies) in this category in the United States, 40,252(less than 1%) potentially operate in or near the VACAPES Range Complex EIS/OEIS Study Area.Because of existing Navy practices that allow joint use of most areas, impacts on this industry would beminimal.Most industries that contribute to the regional economy are land-based. The leading industry in the studyarea is retail trade. This and other land-based industries would not be affected by the changes in trainingoperations that would be associated with Alternative 1.State Landings – Based on the size of the VACAPES Study Area and the limited change in numbers andtypes of Navy operations within this area, the increase in likelihood of contact between Navy operations3-441 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional Economyand commercial fishing practices would be negligible compared to the No Action Alternative. Trainingmissions in the VACAPES Study Area that are potentially incompatible with civilian commercialactivities already are conducted in restricted areas designed for that activity. The Navy has establishedprocedures to ensure users of joint use areas are cleared before exercises begin. These procedures wouldensure that the proposed actions associated with Alternative 1 would not result in impacts to statelandings in the Study Area. Because the training areas are not proposed to change with implementation ofAlternative 1, the areas that traditionally produce state landings are not expected to change.Fishing Gear – Fishing activities have the potential to interact with equipment used during the proposedNavy training operations. Commercial bottom-fishing gear represents about a third of the gear types usedin the study area, and it has the greatest potential for negative effects. Interaction with bottom-fishinggear could result in the loss of or damage to both commercial fishing gear and naval hardware.Alternative 1 would have a minimal impact on commercial fishing gear. This conclusion is based on thelarge size of the study area, the relatively small changes in naval operations that would be associated withthis alternative, and the familiarity of local commercial fishermen with Navy use areas and practices andhow to avoid them. Changes in naval activities that would have the greatest potential for conflict withfishing gear (mine warfare activities) would occur in areas designed for those activities where fishing isnot likely to occur.Tourism – Tourism in the study area encompasses many activities that do not involve boating or sailing.While tourism is an important economic activity in the vicinity, only a small percentages of visitors (lessthan five percent) report coming to the area for boating or sailing activities (North Carolina Division ofTourism, Film and Sports Development, 2005).Tourism activities could be affected by Navy activities on a short-term and infrequent basis. However,because the Navy issues prior notice of area restrictions, mariners such as charter boat captains wouldknow in advance to choose another area for a day’s activities. Therefore, impacts to tourism would beminimal.Recreational Fishing – As indicated in the EFH study in Appendix F, the popular fishing sites arecharacterized by relative ease of access, ability to anchor or secure the boat, and abundant presence oftarget fish. For all states in the study area, at least 25 percent of the recreational fishing occurs inland and10 percent or less occurs in federal waters or beyond, which is the area where most of the Navy OPAREAtraining occurs. As a result, the changes in training operations that would occur with Alternative 1 wouldnot increase interference with recreational fishing.Alternative 1 would not have any impacts to industry, commercial fishing, tourism, or recreationalfishing. Under NEPA, Alternative 1 in U.S. territory would have no effect on the regional economy.3.15.3.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)Most impacts to industry, commercial fishing, tourism, and recreational fishing with implementation ofAlternative 2 would be the same as those described for Alternative 1. The only differences would beassociated with the mine warfare training areas that would be established in the lower Chesapeake Bay.Changes would occur in these training areas, based on greater use of helicopter sorties (92 percentincrease over the No Action Alternative annually) and the deployment of 20-40 bottom and moored mineshapes per training area. There would be an 85 percent decrease in HE bombs dropped under Alternative2 and the BOMBEX area would only be performed in W-386 (Air-K). This decrease in BOMBEXswould allow more commercial and recreational use of W-72 (Air-3b) as in the No Action Alternative orAlternative 1. The effects of Alternative 2would be highly localized and would not have a measurableimpact on study area industry, state landings, fishing gear, tourism, or recreational fishing. Under NEPA,Alternative 2 in U.S. territory would have no effect on the regional economy.3-442 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.15 Regional Economy3.15.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThere would not be any unavoidable significant environmental effects on the regional economy as a resultof implementation of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2.3.15.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)As summarized in Table 3.15-10, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would nothave substantial environmental impacts on the regional economy.TABLE 3.15-10SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON THEREGIONAL ECONOMY IN THE VACAPES RANGE COMPLEXAlternatives andNEPAEO 12114Stressors(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)No ActionVessel movements(disturbance)Aircraft overflights(disturbance)Military expendedmaterialsImpact conclusionAlternative 1Vessel movements(disturbance)Aircraft overflights(disturbance)Military expendedmaterialsImpact conclusionAlternative 2Vessel movements(disturbance)Aircraft overflights(disturbance)Military expendedmaterialsImpact conclusionNo impacts would occur to industry,commercial fishing, tourism, or recreationalfishing. No substantial shift in regionalspending and earning patterns.The No Action Alternative would have noimpact to the regional economy.No impact would occur to industry,commercial fishing, tourism, or recreationalfishing. No substantial shift in regionalspending and earning patterns.Alternative 1 would have no impact to theregional economy.No impact would occur to industry,commercial fishing, tourism, or recreationalfishing. No substantial shift in regionalspending and earning patterns.Alternative 2 would have no impact to theregional economy.Not evaluated because this area is outsidethe regional economy study area.Not evaluated because this area is outsidethe regional economy study area.Not evaluated because this area is outsidethe regional economy study area.Not evaluated because this area is outsidethe regional economy study area.Not evaluated because this area is outsidethe regional economy study area.Not evaluated because this area is outsidethe regional economy study area.3-443 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.16 RECREATIONChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.16 Recreation3.16.1 Introduction and MethodsThis section considers effects to non-commercial recreation activities in the study area. Commercialrecreation activities are addressed in the regional economy section of this EIS/OEIS.Offshore areas of the Atlantic Coast from Delaware to North Carolina are in use by both military andcivilian interests. Civilian activities are compatible with Navy ships, which account for only 3 percent ofthe total ship presence out to 200 nm (CNA, 2001). Naval vessels and aircraft conducting operations thatare not compatible with civilian activities, such as hazardous weapons firing, are confined to OPAREAsaway from shipping lanes, and to special use airspace (SUA). Hazardous operations are communicated inadvance to all vessels and operators by use of notices to mariners (NOTMAR), issued by the U.S. CoastGuard (USCG), and notices to airmen (NOTAM), issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).NOTMARs can be found on the Internet at www.nga.mil/portal/site/maritime and NOTAMs are availableon the Internet at https://www.notams.jcs.mil.NOTMARs and NOTAMs provide civilians, such as recreational boaters, fishers, divers, and aircraftoperators with notice that the military will be operating in a specific area, and allow these civilian groupsto plan their activities accordingly. Schedules are updated when changes occur up, until the date of theoperation. If operations are cancelled at any time, this information is posted and the area is againidentified as clear for public use.3.16.1.1 Assessment Methods and Data UsedInformation regarding personal watercraft (PWC) was obtained in part from the USCG. Statistical datafrom the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) were also consulted with regard torecreational boating. State divisions of tourism, parks, and recreation provided state-specific PWC andrecreational boating data.The sport diving industry does not maintain statistics on numbers of individuals diving in specific regionsof the country or on commonly used sites (Davison, 2007; DEMA, 2006). Dive locations identified inthis document were established through the use of:The NOAA Office of Coast Survey’s Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System;A survey of state dive charter company websites;Veridian Corporation’s 2001 Global Maritime Wrecks Database; andState tourism and parks and recreation information.National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) collects statistics on marine recreational fishing. Theinformation is obtained through recreational fishing participant telephone surveys, access site anglerintercept surveys, a sampling of angler trips, and voluntary sampling of angler trips by participants.Through surveys, the number of boat trips and catch per trip are determined and total catch is estimated.Favored fishing hotspots change over time with changes in fish populations and communities, preferredtarget species, or fishing modes and styles. Popular fishing sites are characterized by relative ease ofaccess, ability to anchor or secure the boat, and abundant presence of target fish. Anglers focusing onareas of bottom relief habitat not only catch reef-associated fish but also coastal pelagic species that maybe attracted to the habitat. A more extensive discussion of fishing habitat is found in Appendix F.3.16.1.2 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsImpacts to recreation are assessed in terms of anticipated levels of disruption of or improvement incurrent levels of access to recreation areas. Impacts may result from physical restriction of recreationareas. As shown in Table 3.16-1, stressors that would likely impact recreational interests include vessel3-444 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.16 Recreationmovements (disturbance), aircraft overflights (disturbance), and military expended materials. Thesestressors were identified by conducting a detailed analysis of the warfare areas, operations, and specificactivities included in the alternatives.TABLE 3.16-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO RECREATION RESOURCESWarfare Area and OperationTraining AreasVessel Movements(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Military Expended MaterialsMine Warfare (MIW)Mine countermeasures exercise (MCM) Lower Chesapeake Bay Mine countermeasures exercise (MCM) W-50A/C, W-386, W-72 Mine neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing exercise (air-to-surface) (at sea)W-386 (Air-K), W-72A (Air-3B), W-72A/B Missile exercise (MISSILEX) (air-to-surface) W-386 (Air-K), W-72A Gunnery exercise (GUNEX) (air-to-surface)W-386 (Air-K), W-72A,W-72A (Air-1A), W-50C GUNEX (surface-to-surface) boat W-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (surface-to-surface) ship W-386, W-72 Laser targeting W-386 (Air-K) Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure/MaritimeInterception Operations (VBSS/MIO)- shipVACAPES OPAREAVBSS/MIO- Helicopter VACAPES OPAREA Air Warfare (AW)Air combat maneuver (ACM) W-72A (Air-2A/B, 3A/B) GUNEX (air-to-air) W-72A MISSILEX (air-to-air)W-386 (Air D, G, H, K),W-72A GUNEX (surface-to-air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (surface-to-air) W-386 (Air D, G, H, K) Air intercept control (AIC) W-386, W-72 Detect to engage (DTE) W-386, W-72 3-445 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.16 RecreationTABLE 3.16-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO RECREATION RESOURCES (Continued)Warfare Area and OperationTraining AreasVessel Movements(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Military Expended MaterialsStrike Warfare (STW)HARM missile exercise W-386 (Air E, F, I, J) Amphibious Warfare (AMW)FIREX with Integrated Maritime PortableAcoustic Scoring and Simulator System(IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)W-386 (7C/D, 8C/D), W-72(1C1/2) (Preferred Areas), W-386 (5C/D) (Secondary Areas )Chaff exercise - aircraft W-386, W-386 (Air-K), W-72 Chaff exercise - ship W-386, W-72 Flare exercise- aircraft W-386, W-386 (Air-K), W-72 Electronic combat (EC) operations - aircraft W-386 (Air-K) EC operations - ship VACAPES OPAREA Test and EvaluationShipboard Electronic Systems EvaluationFacility (SESEF) UtilizationVACAPES OPAREA3.16.2 Affected EnvironmentBecause the VACAPES Range Complex does not include land, all civilian recreational activities in therange complex are conducted from boats. The most common activities include fishing, diving onshipwrecks and artificial reefs, whale watching, sailing, and cruising.In 2005, 7.8 million residents participated in marine recreational fishing in the Atlantic Ocean. Thesevisitors took more than 52 million trips and caught a total of almost 243 million fish. Of that total,approximately 30 percent came from the study area for the VACAPES EIS/OEIS.Over 30 percent of the total Atlantic catch came on saltwater trips that fished primarily in the stateterritorial seas, and 60 percent came on trips that fished primarily in inland waters (this is an estimate thatdoes not include the High Sea). Using this distribution of trips in saltwater and inland waters,Table 3.16-2 shows the estimated number of trips (not the number of anglers actually participating) in2005 for inland and saltwater settings for the states in the VACAPES EIS/OEIS Study Area. The data inthis table are reported by state, and a breakout for the lower Chesapeake Bay is not available.3-446 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.16 RecreationTABLE 3.16-2RECREATIONAL ANGLERS IN THE VACAPES EIS/OEIS STUDY AREA a/StateNumber of TripsInland Trips(60 percent)Saltwater Trips(30 percent)Delaware 1,163,000 698,000 349,000Maryland 3,254,000 1,952,000 976,000Virginia 3,791,000 2,275,000 1,137,000North Carolina 6,823,000 4,094,000 2,047,000a/ Source: NMFS, 2007a3.16.2.1 DelawareRecreational Boating and Diving. Recreational activities primarily include game and sport fishing,charter boat fishing, sport diving, whale watching, sailing, and power cruising. Delaware ranks 43rd inthe nation for the number of recreational boats registered in the state (USCG, 2005). Recreational boatsrange throughout the Delaware coastal waters, with use depending on season and weather conditions.Travel between the most popular cruising destinations along the Delaware coast does not requiretraversing Navy OPAREAs. However, some recreational vessels, in particular sailboats and motorcruisers in the 50-foot and larger class, travel considerable distances offshore and could enter theVACAPES OPAREA. However, because registered boats 25 feet or larger represent less than 1 percentof total U.S. recreational boats (NMMA, 2007), the presence of such vessels in the OPAREA would beuncommon.Although dive trip opportunities are not as numerous as in states farther south, at least one chartercompany offers wreck diving trips from the Delaware shore (aquaventuresonline.com). At least25 shipwreck sites are common destinations for divers (Reef Scuba Accessories, 2007), with about69 total shipwrecks occurring in the VACAPES Study Area off the coast of Delaware (Veridian, 2001).Figure 3.12-1 illustrates the general locations of wrecks, many of which are in the VACAPES EIS/OEISStudy Area.Recreational Fishing. Table 3.16-3 provides Delaware fish catch recreational landings for the years 2002through 2006. As shown in the table, total recreational landings declined sharply from more than 1.5million in 2002 to fewer than 0.3 million in 2005, but then recovered to 0.7 million landings in 2006. Inmost years, the highest numbers of landings occurred in the July-August period, with these two monthsaccounting for 26 to 58 percent of annual recreational take.TABLE 3.16-3DELAWARE RECREATIONAL LANDINGS a/Months 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Jan-Feb 0 b/, c/ 0 0 0 0Mar-Apr 13,667 14,833 17,596 679 1,437May-Jun 282,660 113,391 51,477 58,837 311,521Jul-Aug 909,046 298,612 74,574 134,720 245,713Sep-Oct 345,181 206,132 138,927 39,765 109,750Nov-Dec 12,521 22,883 4,368 43,055 44,432Year total 1,563,075 655,851 286,942 277,056 712,853a/ Source: NMFS, 2007b.b/ Numbers represent the total of all species and all methods of harvest in the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone, which formost states is the state boundary (3 nm) out to 200 nm.c/ Because of data collection problems, months that indicate zero (0) did not have data available.3-447 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.16 Recreation3.16.2.2 MarylandRecreational Boating and Diving. Recreational activities in Maryland are the same as those identified forDelaware. Maryland ranks 24th in the nation for the number of recreational boats registered in the state(USCG, 2005), with 205,812 boats registered in 2005 (NMMA, 2007). Recreational boats rangethroughout the Maryland coastal waters, depending on season and weather conditions.Travel between the most popular cruising destinations along the Maryland coast does not requiretraversing Navy OPAREAs. As in Delaware, sailboats and motor cruisers of 50 feet or more sometimestravel considerable distances offshore, but there are relatively few of these vessels (NMMA, 2007) andtheir presence in the OPAREA is uncommon.For divers, there are many shipwrecks and artificial reefs between Ocean City and the boundary of theVACAPES Study Area (Figure 3.12-1). There are an estimated 60 shipwrecks offshore of Maryland(Veridian, 2001). Artificial reefs were constructed offshore of Ocean City by the Maryland Departmentof Natural Resources in the 1990s. In 2006, the Coastal Conservation Association executed amemorandum of understanding with the State of Maryland, Department of Natural Resources to assistwith the funding and development of the Maryland Artificial Reef Initiative, which seeks to preserve andadd to the reefs in Maryland waters. The ocean dive season in this area of the country runs from Maythrough October (Weedon, 2003).Recreational Fishing. Table 3.16-4 provides Maryland recreational fish landings for the years 2002through 2006. The recreational take in this state has decreased since 2002, but a clear pattern throughoutall years is not evident. The July-August period usually has the highest numbers, in some yearsaccounting for more than 80 percent of the annual catch, but substantial numbers of fish also are taken inthe May-June and September-October periods.TABLE 3.16-4MARYLAND RECREATIONAL LANDINGS a/Months 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Jan-Feb 0 b/, c/ 0 0 0 0Mar-Apr 44,386 30,455 28,155 5,801 10,505May-Jun 224,932 197,358 105,151 91,671 258,186Jul-Aug 2,013,137 275,356 765,197 1,284,432 559,841Sep-Oct 400,494 1,041,117 37,955 81,662 146,105Nov-Dec 0 50,265 0 16,675 12,072Year total 2,682,949 1,594,551 936,458 1,480,241 986,709a/ Source: NMFS, 2007b.b/ Numbers represent the total of all species and all methods of harvest in the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone, which formost states is the state boundary (3 nm) out to 200 nm.c/ Because of data collection problems, months that indicate zero (0) did not have data available.3.16.2.3 VirginiaRecreational Boating and Diving. Recreational activities in Virginia primarily include dolphin and whalewatching cruises, pleasure cruising, water skiing, fishing, and swimming (Virginia Tourism Corporation,2007). Virginia ranks 19th in the nation for the number of recreational boats registered in the state(USCG, 2005), with 245,073 boats registered in 2005 (NMMA, 2007). This number is anticipated toincrease, based on an expected increase in coastal populations (VDH, 2007).Recreational boats range throughout the Virginia coastal waters, depending on season and weatherconditions. Travel between the most popular cruising destinations along the Virginia coast does not3-448 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.16 Recreationrequire traversing the VACAPES OPAREA. Large recreational vessels may sometimes use the area, butthere are few vessels of this type (NMMA, 2007) and their presence is uncommon.All diving sites off the coast of Virginia are to shipwrecks and five artificial reefs. Coral does not occurat this latitude. Popular shipwreck diving destinations occur at depths between 50 feet and 160 feet (ReefScuba Accessories, 2007), with 307 of the total 525 wrecks in the VACAPES Study Area occurringoffshore of Virginia (Veridian, 2001) (Figure 3.12-1). However, despite the presence of offshore scubadiving locations, in a statewide survey, diving was not given as a significant reason for recreationalboating among boat owners (Responsive Management, 2000).Recreational Fishing. Recreational fishing is a major industry in Virginia. More than 30 species of gamefish occur in the VACAPES Study Area, and these fish are targeted during recreational fishingtournaments that occur throughout the spring, summer, and fall. Table 3.16-5 provides Virginiarecreational fish catch for the years 2002 through 2006. The annual highest catch (2002) was more thanthree times the lowest annual catch (2006) but a clear pattern is not evident throughout the period.Although more fish are caught in the warm months than in winter, the seasonal is less apparent than in themore northern states of the study area.TABLE 3.16-5VIRGINIA RECREATIONAL LANDINGS a/Months 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Jan-Feb 0 b/, c/ 0 0 0 0Mar-Apr 186,263 37,663 123,776 86,891 60,058May-Jun 682,604 405,351 258,150 580,994 289,369Jul-Aug 678,758 273,352 803,278 217,633 203,762Sep-Oct 73,627 206,848 28,942 416,683 17,639Nov-Dec 133,530 47,402 171,753 365 4,458Year Total 1,754,782 970,616 1,385,899 1,302,566 575,286a/ Source: NMFS, 2007b.b/ Numbers represent the total of all species and all methods of harvest in the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone, which formost states is the state boundary (3 nm) out to 200 nm.c/ Because of data collection problems, months that indicate zero (0) did not have data available.In terms of landings by weight, tuna and mackerel were the first-ranked species group in 2002 in thefederal waters recreational fishery off the coast of Virginia. Tuna and mackerel accounted for more than34 percent of the total recreational landings from federal waters off Virginia. Dolphin was the secondrankedspecies group and represented more than 15 percent of the landings in 2002.More than 135,000 fishing trips were taken in 2002 by individual recreational anglers fishing in federalwaters off the coast of Virginia. More than 1.4 million people participated in recreational fishing inmarine fishing areas, including the state territorial sea and federal waters.3.16.2.4 North CarolinaRecreational Boating and Diving. Recreational activities in North Carolina are similar to those identifiedfor Delaware and Maryland. North Carolina ranks 11th in the nation in number of recreational boatsregistered in the state (USCG, 2005), with 362,784 boats (NMMA, 2007).Recreational boats range throughout the North Carolina coastal waters, depending on season and weatherconditions. Travel between the most popular cruising destinations does not require traversing theVACAPES Range Complex, but large recreational vessels and cruising vessels transiting ocean passages3-449 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.16 Recreationfrom some North Carolina ports to the Bahamas or Bermuda might favor courses through the VACAPESStudy Area. However, the presence of these vessels in the OPAREA is relatively uncommon.Shipwrecks provide habitat suitable for development of artificial reefs, and are popular destinations fordivers. Within the VACAPES Study Area, about 89 shipwrecks are located off North Carolina (Veridian,2001).Recreational Fishing. Table 3.16-6 provides North Carolina recreational fish catch for the years 2002through 2006. In contrast to the other states, the number of landings has been steady or increasing duringthis period. The take in May-June is similar to that in July-August, and substantial catches occur fromMarch through late fall.TABLE 3.16-6NORTH CAROLINA RECREATIONAL LANDINGS a/Months 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Jan-Feb 0 b/, c/ 0 26,698 26,061 70,128Mar-Apr 876,752 675,188 1,236,176 1,806,782 502,123May-Jun 5,447,372 5,415,552 4,517,388 2,129,716 5,326,483Jul-Aug 2,183,770 5,761,653 3,195,412 6,097,507 3,719,142Sep-Oct 1,762,664 1,441,839 1,205,901 2,160,146 4,664,639Nov-Dec 1,486,112 987,098 1,648,644 1,243,464 2,914,161Year Total 11,756,670 14,281,330 11,830,219 13,463,676 17,196,676a/ Source: NMFS, 2007b.b/ Numbers represent the total of all species and all methods of harvest in the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone, which formost states is the state boundary (3 nm) out to 200 nm.c/ Because of data collection problems, months that indicate zero (0) did not have data available.3.16.2.5 Lower Chesapeake BayRecreational activities offshore in the lower Chesapeake Bay include fishing, kayaking, diving, andcanoeing. Many of these activities are centered on the Chesapeake Bay’s more than 1,800 shipwrecks(Chesapeake Bay Program, 2008). Another important resource is the Lower Chesapeake Bay BridgeTunnel, which functions as one of the largest artificial reefs ever constructed. The tunnel includes 20miles of bridge pylons, four man-made rock islands, two underwater tunnels, and a 625-foot-long fishingpier (CBBT, 2008), and provides year-round opportunities to fish along its entire length. Favored fishinglocations change over time (see Appendix F), but the best catch usually occurs on low light days, at night,or at dusk. Bottom fishing is the most common method of fishing (Adams Fishing Adventures, 2007).3.16.3 Environmental ConsequencesFactors used to assess the significance of impacts on recreational activities include an alternative’spotential to increase restricted military activities such that civilian recreational use would be entirelyexcluded from an area. A serious disruption would occur if civilian recreational activities were entirelyexcluded from areas in the VACAPES Range Complex. Temporary displacement of recreationalactivities would not constitute a serious disruption.3.16.3.1 No Action AlternativeVessel operators have considerable discretion in their choice of recreation locations As a result,temporary clearances for safety purposes that would be implemented under the No Action Alternativewould have little or no effect on the numbers of vessels or people involved in recreational activities, thesuccess of their activities, or the satisfaction of participants in their recreational experience.3-450 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.16 RecreationWhen a safety clearance of the OPAREA is required, a NOTMAR is provided in advance. Thisnotification would continue to allow boaters to select an alternate destination without substantiallyaffecting their activities.Among the approximately 15 million angler trips that annually occur in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,and North Carolina, about 60 percent (9 million) occur in inland waters (see Table 3.16-2). The NoAction Alternative would not have any effects on activities of these recreationists. Only about 30 percent(4.5 million angler trips) occur in saltwater, and most of these are within the state territorial boundaries(within 3 nm of shore). Most diving also occurs in shallow waters (less than 160 feet deep) close toshore. Although some of these activities may occasionally be displaced by Navy training, impacts wouldbe short-term. Similarly, the requirement for larger recreational vessels transiting the OPAREA to avoidspecified areas that were being used for training would not cause any serious disruptions.The potential stressors of vessel movements, aircraft overflights, and military expended materials wouldbe confined to the OPAREA. The continued use of NOTMARs issued by the USCG and NOTAMsissued by the FAA to notify vessels and operators of the requirement to avoid hazardous operations wouldhelp ensure that periodic closures of areas did not affect recreational experiences.The Navy is required to avoid recreational boaters in the range complex when conducting trainingoperations (DoN, 2006). The No Action Alternative would not have a significant impact on recreationalactivities as they are currently implemented because of the Navy’s policy of avoidance.In accordance with the NEPA, naval activity in U.S. territory under the No Action Alternative would haveno significant impact on recreational activities. In accordance with EO 12114, naval activity in nonterritorialwaters would not cause harm to recreational activities.3.16.3.2 Alternative 1The Navy could accomplish the proposed activities associated with Alternative 1 without modifications toor the need for additional designated ocean or airspace. Throughout most of the study area, impactswould not change from those described for the No Action Alternative.Alternative 1 would include organic mine countermeasures (OMCM) operations that would result inadditional restrictions to civilian traffic during OMCM operational periods. The addition of OMCM tothe current mine countermeasures exercises conducted in the VACAPES Study Area would likely resultin an additional 20 steaming days per year that the Navy would be operating and that civilians might berestricted from part of the existing OPAREA. Because much of the steaming would be performedconcurrently with existing operations, the change in steaming time would represent a 1.4 percent increasefrom current conditions. This would not significantly impact recreation in the VACAPES Study Area.In accordance with the NEPA, implementation of Alternative 1 would have no significant impact onrecreation resources in U.S. territory. In accordance with EO 12114, implementation of Alternative 1would not cause harm to recreation resources in non-territorial waters.3.16.3.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)Most impacts to recreation resources from Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for the NoAction Alternative. For OMCM operations, the effects of Alternative 2 would be identical to thoseassociated with Alternative 1.Alternative 2 would increase operations and would establish mine warfare training areas within theVACAPES Study Area (see Table 2.2-4). All proposed actions would be implemented within existingmilitary operating areas. The placement of temporary and permanent, non-explosive mine shapes on ornear the sea floor would not pose a navigation or fishing hazard. Mooring lines would only be left inplace only for as long as a mine shape was in the water (Section 2.2.5). Because of their small size (about3-451 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.16 Recreation2 feet per side), the mine shape anchors would be too small to provide fish habitat and would not enhancerecreational fishing or diving.In accordance with the NEPA, implementation of Alternative 2 would have no significant impact onrecreation resources in U.S. territory. In accordance with EO 12114, implementation of Alternative 2would not cause harm to recreation resources in non-territorial waters.3.16.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThere would not be any unavoidable significant environmental effects with respect to recreation as aresult of implementing the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2.3.16.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)As summarized in Table 3.16-7, No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would have nosignificant impact on recreation. Furthermore, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2would not cause harm to recreation in non-territorial waters.TABLE 3.16-7SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVESON RECREATION IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREAAlternatives and StressorsNo ActionVessel movements(disturbance)Aircraft overflights(disturbance)Military expended materialsImpact conclusionAlternative 1Vessel movements(disturbance)Aircraft overflights(disturbance)Military expended materialsImpact conclusionAlternative 2Vessel movements(disturbance)Aircraft overflights(disturbance)Military expended materialsImpact conclusionNEPA(U.S. Territory)Significant impacts on recreationwould not occur because of the use ofNOTMARs, NOTAMs, and exclusiveuse areas for Navy activities.No impact on recreation in U.S.territory.Significant impacts on recreationwould not occur because of the use ofNOTMARs, NOTAMs, and exclusiveuse areas for Navy activities.No impact on recreation in U.S.territory.Significant impacts on recreationwould not occur because of the use ofNOTMARs, NOTAMs, and exclusiveuse areas for Navy activities.No impact on recreation in U.S.territory.EO 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Significant impacts on recreationwould not occur because of the use ofNOTMARs, NOTAMs, and exclusiveuse areas for Navy activities.No harm on recreation in nonterritorialwaters.Significant impacts on recreationwould not occur because of the use ofNOTMARs, NOTAMs, and exclusiveuse areas for Navy activities.No harm on recreation in nonterritorialwaters.Significant impacts on recreationwould not occur because of the use ofNOTMARs, NOTAMs, and exclusiveuse areas for Navy activities.No harm on recreation in nonterritorialwaters.3-452 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.17 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICEChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.17 Environmental Justice3.17.1 Introduction and MethodsEnvironmental JusticeExecutive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populationsand Low-Income Populations, was issued on February 11, 1994. This EO requires each federal agency toidentify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmentalimpacts of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)emphasize the importance of incorporating environmental justice review in the analyses conducted byfederal agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and of developingprotective measures that avoid disproportionate environmental impacts on minority and low-incomepopulations.Objectives of this EO as it pertains to this EIS/OEIS include development of federal agencyimplementation strategies, identification of minority and low-income populations where proposed federalactions could have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts, andparticipation of minority and low-income populations in the public participation process.Protection of ChildrenThe President issued EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks, in 1997. This order requires each federal agency to “…make it a high priority to identify andassess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children andshall...ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks tochildren….” This order was issued because a growing body of scientific knowledge demonstrates thatchildren may suffer disproportionately from environmental health risks and safety risks.Navy Supplemental Environmental Planning PolicyEO 12898 and EO 13045 require each federal agency to identify and address impacts of their programs,policies, and activities. The Navy chose to ensure compliance with EO 12898 and EO 13045 throughimplementation of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Supplemental Environmental Planning Policy(23 September 2004). This policy provides instructions for naval personnel to identify and assessstressors to, and disproportionately high and adverse impacts upon, minorities, low-income populations,and children. A component of this policy institutes processes that result in consistent and efficientconsideration of environmental impacts on Navy decision-making.3.17.1.1 Assessment Methods and Data UsedThis section was prepared by compiling and evaluating existing information supplied by the U.S. CensusBureau and state and local governmental agencies and local organizations, as shown in Chapter 7(References). These were the same references used to develop the regional economy, demographics,transportation, recreation, and public health and safety sections. A review of the resources was conductedto identify stressors and to determine whether the identified stressors would result in disproportionatelyhigh and adverse impacts for the purposes of the environmental justice analysis. An evaluation was thenconducted to determine if further analysis was needed to determine if impacts could disproportionatelyfall on minorities, low-income populations, or children.People, including minority and low-income populations and children, do not live within the VACAPESRange Complex in non-territorial waters more than 12 nm from the shore. Therefore, environmentaljustice was considered only from a NEPA perspective and was not evaluated in accordance with EO12114.3-453 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.17 Environmental Justice3.17.1.2 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsThe CEQ’s environmental justice guidance under NEPA identifies factors that are to be considered to theextent practicable when determining whether environmental impacts to minority populations and lowincomepopulations are disproportionately high and adverse. These factors include whether there is orwould be an effect on the natural or physical environment that adversely affects a minority population,low-income population, or Indian tribe. Such impacts may include ecological, cultural, human health,economic, or social impacts when those impacts are interrelated to impacts to the natural or physicalenvironment. Other factors to be considered if adverse impacts are projected include: Whether they will appreciably exceed those same impacts to the general population or otherappropriate comparison group; and Whether these populations have been affected by cumulative or multiple exposures fromenvironmental hazards.The methods used to conduct the impacts analysis for environmental justice included a review ofconclusions for resources discussed in other sections of this Chapter 3 to determine if such stressors exist.Where impacts were identified, an evaluation was conducted to determine if further analysis was neededto determine if impacts could disproportionately fall on minority populations or low-income populations.A review of the conclusions for the resources in Chapter 3 revealed that there were no significantenvironmental impacts that would require additional analysis. The lack of significant impacts means thatthere are no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority populations or low-incomepopulations.3.17.2 Affected EnvironmentThe VACAPES EIS/OEIS Study Area includes the airspace, seaspace, and undersea space of theOPAREA and warning areas of the VACAPES Range Complex, including the area from the mean hightide line, up to and extending seaward of the 3-nm western boundary of the OPAREA. The affectedenvironment is primarily open water and the states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.Populations that could be impacted would be fisherman and recreational users of the open water areas,most of whom are likely to live in the coastal areas of these states.The latest year for which data are available is 2005. During that period, 6.6 percent of Delaware’spopulation was under the age of five, Maryland had 6.8 percent of the population under the age of five,the Virginia population under the age of five was 6.8 percent, and 7.0 percent of North Carolina’spopulation was under the age of five (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).In the Delaware, the percent of the population with incomes below the poverty level is 9.6 percent. Thisvalue is 9.2 percent in Maryland, 9.5 percent in Virginia, and 13.8 percent in North Carolina. All of thesevalues are similar to the United States rate of 12.7 percent.The non-white population (which includes Black, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, NativeHawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino origin, and persons reporting two or more races)is 31.3 percent of the Delaware total population, 41.7 percent of the Maryland total population, 32.5percent of the Virginia total population, and 32.4 percent of the North Carolina total population. All ofthese are similar to the United States value of 34.2 percent non-white.North Carolina’s educational attainment of high school and bachelor’s degrees are slightly lower than thatof the United States. Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia all report educational attainment statisticsslightly higher than the United States average.3-454 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.17 Environmental JusticeThe major industry in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina is retail trade. Fishing is rankedfourth or fifth in the top ten industries in the states (Delaware, Virginia, and North Carolina ranked 5thand Maryland ranked 4th).3.17.3 Environmental ConsequencesEnvironmental impacts related to environmental justice or protection of children could occur if theywould disproportionately affect minorities, low-income populations, or children.3.17.3.1 No Action AlternativeThe No Action Alternative would continue current Navy and Marine Corps training. Because currentoperations would occur entirely in open water areas with no permanent populations, no disproportionateimpacts would occur to land-based populations unless they obtained a living from fishing or other uses ofopen water areas.The fishing industry in Delaware, Virginia, and North Carolina ranks fifth in the state; Maryland fishingindustry ranks fourth in the state. As described in Section 3.15, this industry is unlikely to be impacted,because the No Action Alternative is the continuation of current training activities. As a result, the NoAction Alternative would not result in a finding of any disproportional impacts to minorities, low-incomepopulations, or children in U.S. territory.3.17.3.2 Alternative 1Alternative 1 would increase the tempo of activities that already occur in the VACAPES Study Area. Itwould not result in any disproportional impacts to minorities, low-income populations, or children. Navyactivities in U.S. territory would have no impact on environmental justice under Alternative 1.3.17.3.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)Alternative 2 would change the tempo of activities that already occur in the VACAPES Study Area. Itwould not result in any disproportional impacts to minorities, low-income populations, or children. Navyactivities in U.S. territory would have no impact on environmental justice under Alternative 2.3.17.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThere would not be any unavoidable significant environmental effects related to environmental justice asa result of implementation of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2.3.17.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)As summarized in Table 3.17-1, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would nothave substantial environmental impacts on environmental justice.3-455 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.17 Environmental JusticeTABLE 3.17-1SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTSOF THE ALTERNATIVES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREAAlternativeand StressorNo ActionNo stressorsidentifiedImpactconclusionAlternative 1No stressorsidentifiedImpactconclusionAlternative 2No stressorsidentifiedImpactconclusionNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)No effects that would disproportionately affectminority or low-income populations or theenvironmental health or level of safety risks tochildren.The No Action Alternative would have noimpact on environmental justice or theprotection of children.No effects that would disproportionately affectminority or low-income populations or theenvironmental health or level of safety risks tochildren.Alternative 1 would have no impact onenvironmental justice or the protection ofchildren.No effects that would disproportionately affectminority or low-income populations or theenvironmental health or level of safety risks tochildren.Alternative 2 would have no impact onenvironmental justice or the protection ofchildren.EO 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Not evaluated because this area is outside theregional economy study area.Not evaluated because this area is outside theregional economy study area.Not evaluated because this area is outside theregional economy study area.Not evaluated because this area is outside theregional economy study area.Not evaluated because this area is outside theregional economy study area.Not evaluated because this area is outside theregional economy study area.3-456 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS3.18 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETYChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and Safety3.18.1 Introduction and MethodsPublic health and safety issues include potential hazards inherent in vessel movements, flight operations,mine warfare, aerial bombardment, firing of weapons, and underwater demolition. The Navy observesevery possible precaution in the planning and execution of all onshore and offshore activities to preventinjury to people.3.18.1.1 Assessment Methods and Data UsedAll current and proposed training operations were examined for the possibility of civilians or uninvolvedmilitary personnel being placed in a hazardous environment associated with Navy training that couldcause personal injury. Current Navy safety procedures and their implementation according to existingNavy instructions were assessed for their protection of the public from the hazardous training operationsproposed in the alternatives.3.18.1.2 Warfare Areas and Associated Environmental StressorsImpacts to public health and safety were assessed based on the potential for Navy training operations toinjure or otherwise harm civilians or uninvolved military personnel. Impacts could result from physicalinjury caused directly by hazardous operations, or as an indirect result of hazardous materials expendedfrom a training event.Stressors that potentially could impact public health and safety are identified in Table 3.18-1. Theseinclude disturbance from and collisions with surface and subsurface ships; noise and strikes associatedwith aircraft use; mine warfare training activities, including the deployment and recovery of mine shapes;the use of non-explosive practice munitions (NEPM); the use of bombs, missiles, and other explosiveordnance; and the release of military expended material (MEM).Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is produced by radar, navigational aids, and electronic warfare (EW)systems. Lasers, which are used in range-finding and targeting systems, have the potential to damageliving tissue, particularly in the eye. Because they are used across several types of stressors, the potentialeffects from EMR and lasers are considered separately from the other stressors.Amplification on some of the effects that relate to public health and safety is provided in other sections ofthis chapter as follows. Military expended materials, including hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, are addressed inSection 3.2. Water quality impacts are considered in Section 3.3. Effects on air quality are evaluated in Section 3.4.Noise that is transmitted through the air is evaluated in Section 3.5.3.18.2 Affected EnvironmentMilitary, commercial, institutional, and recreational activities take place in the VACAPES Study Area(See Section 1.5). Although the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established warning areas formilitary aircraft operations, most of the airspace and seaspace in the range complex is available for use byall civilian and military users. Only hazardous activities require exclusive use of an area, and periods ofthese activities are scheduled in advance by the Navy and broadcast through U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)notices to mariners (NOTMAR) and FAA notices to airmen (NOTAM).The public typically accesses the offshore ocean areas within the study area for recreational purposes suchas sport fishing, sailing, boating, and diving. In addition, substantial numbers of civilians are on the water3-457 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and Safetywithin the range complex as they engage in activities such as commercial fishing or shipping to and frommajor ports, including the Port of Virginia and Port of Baltimore.As described below, the Navy has standard operating procedures (SOP) in place to ensure public healthand safety, regardless of whether operations are occurring in U.S. territorial waters or internationalwaters. In addition to the preventive measures described below, during all training events or exercises,weapons delivery events are delayed or cancelled if range areas are not clear. Prior to issuing a “GreenRange,” Navy personnel must ensure that the hazard footprint of the ordnance being fired is clear of nonparticipatingsurface vessels, divers, and aircraft.3.18.2.1 Controlling ProceduresAirspace Controlling ProceduresFleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC) VACAPES is a designated air traffic control(ATC) facility. As such, it is required to provide air traffic separation consistent with FAA guidelines toensure the safe, efficient, expeditious flow of air traffic. Radar surveillance and radio communicationsassist in providing area containment and air traffic control separation between military aircraft and thehigh volume of commercial aircraft transiting the numerous jet routes along the Atlantic Coast.FACSFAC VACAPES may issue airspace clearances by warning area (for example, W-72 or WarningArea/Special Operating Area W-72A). However, because the need exists to precisely define smallerparcels of airspace, FACSFAC VACAPES has instituted a special operating area management concept.Within the VACAPES OPAREA, airspace and surface clearances are issued separately, except in W-72where the surface and air grids are aligned. In other warning areas, airspace does not always encompassthe same area as the assigned surface operating areas. This situation exists in the following instances: Atlantic Route 8 and Atlantic Route 9, which partially overlay surface operating areas, are notincluded in the airspace clearance issued when using the Surface Area Grid Reference System. Two or more warning areas may overlay a surface operating area. The airspace clearance issued usingthe Surface Area Grid Reference System includes only the airspace overlying the surface grids withina specified warning area and not the entire surface grid.FACSFAC VACAPES and the FAA Command Center work together to implement the Severe WeatherAvoidance Plan (SWAP), which is an approved plan between both organizations to help minimize theeffects of severe weather on civilian airline traffic flow along the eastern seaboard. If DoD trainingrequirements are not impacted, SWAP will normally be implemented from altitudes FL290 to FL390 tofacilitate the FAA ATC system when flight through portions of airspace is difficult or impossible becauseof severe weather. Subject to military training requirements, GIANTKILLER (VACAPES’ tactical callsign) may release portions of SWAP special use airspace (SUA) located within W-386 and W-50. Uponcompletion of all military training within the warning areas, FACSFAC VACAPES releases the warningareas from FL240 and above to the FAA on a real-time basis.Surface and Subsurface Controlling ProceduresClearance for a surface area does not include the airspace above or the subsurface below. Units arerequired to obtain clearance for all hazardous or exclusive operations within the OPAREA. Subsurfaceoperations may be requested and conducted in all areas with 48 hours notice, except VACAPESOPAREA 3B (Figure 2.1-1), which can be scheduled in real time.Submarine transit lanes ECHO and WHISKEY extend from the eastern boundary of the VACAPESOPAREA to a line about 60 nm west from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. These lanes are used bysubmarines traveling to and from OPAREAs. Submarines that enter the surface area (that is, surfacedown to, but not including, 98 feet) should expect mutual use of the area. Unless an exclusive surface3-458 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and SafetyTABLE 3.18-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETYWarfare Area and OperationTraining AreasVessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Collisions)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Strikes)Mine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsMine Warfare (MIW)Mine Countermeasures Exercise Lower Chesapeake(MCM)Bay Mine Countermeasures Exercise W-50A/C(MCM)W-386, W-72 Mine Neutralization W-50C Surface Warfare (SUW)Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (at sea)Missile Exercise (MISSILEX)(Air-to-Surface)Gunnery Exercise (GUNEX)(Air-to-Surface)W-386 (Air-K)W-72A (Air-3B)W-72A/B W-386 (Air-K) W-72A W-386 (Air-K), W-72A, W-72A (Air-1A), W-50C GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface)BoatW-50C, R-6606 GUNEX (Surface-to-Surface)ShipW-386, W-72 Laser Targeting W-386 (Air-K) Visit, Board, Search, andSeizure/Maritime InterceptionOperations (VBSS/MIO)- ShipVBSS/MIO- HeloAir Warfare (AW)Air Combat Maneuver (ACM)VACAPESOPAREA VACAPESOPAREA W-72A(Air-2A/B, 3A/B) GUNEX (Air-to-Air) W-72A MISSILEX (Air-to-Air)W-386 (Air D, G, H,K)W-72A 3-459 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and SafetyTABLE 3.18-1SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STRESSORS TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY(Continued)Warfare Area and OperationTraining AreasVessel Movements(Disturbance)Vessel Movements(Collisions)Aircraft Overflights(Disturbance)Aircraft Overflights(Strikes)Mine WarfareDeployment/RecoveryNon-Explosive PracticeMunitionsUnderwater Detonations andHigh Explosive OrdnanceMilitary Expended MaterialsGUNEX (Surface-to-Air) W-386, W-72 MISSILEX (Surface-to-Air)W-386(Air D, G, H, K) Air Intercept Control (AIC) W-386, W-72 Detect to Engage (DTE) W-386, W-72 Strike Warfare (STW)HARM Missile ExerciseAmphibious Warfare (AMW)Firing Exercise (FIREX) withIntegrated Maritime PortableAcoustic Scoring and SimulatorSystem (IMPASS)Electronic Combat (EC)Chaff Exercise- aircraftW-386(Air E,F,I,J) W-386 (7C/D,8C/D), W-72(1C1/2) (PreferredAreas), W-386(5C/D) (SecondaryAreas ) W-386, W-386 (Air-K) and W-72 Chaff Exercise- ship W-386 and W-72 Flare Exercise- aircraftW-386, W-386 (Air-K) and W-72 Electronic Combat (EC)Operations- aircraftW-386 (Air-K) EC Operations- shipVACAPESOPAREA Test and EvaluationShipboard Electronic SystemsEvaluation Facility (SESEF) VACAPES OPAREAUtilization 3-460 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and Safetyarea clearance has been obtained from FACSFAC VACAPES by the Submarine Exercise AreaCoordinator (SEAC), surface units may be assigned operations in these areas. FACSFAC VACAPESgrants concurrent surface and exclusive subsurface clearances to the SEAC for submarine operations.In all waters where submarine operations are scheduled, surface units are directed to use one or more ofthe following (unless operations are part of an exercise involving the location of ships): cavitation speeds,active fathometer with maximum depth mode on, or as a last resort, sonar. This requirement may bewaived by the Officer Conducting the Exercise (OCE) for surface participants when the SubmarineOperating Authority (SUBOPAUTH) approves coordinated exercises involving submarines.3.18.2.2 Range Safety ProceduresAll range safety precautions and regulations contained in COMLANTFLTINST 3120.26, Atlantic FleetOperating Areas and Warning Areas, apply in the VACAPES OPAREA. In addition, FACSFACVACAPES imposes additional safety requirements, listed below, which may be waived by the FACSFACVACAPES commanding officer, as the situation dictates. Dropping any ordnance, any use of high-explosive munitions or NEPM, or any live fire is a hazardousevent. All hazardous or exclusive operations and exercises conducted in the FACSFAC VACAPESOPAREA require clearance from FACSFAC VACAPES. The firing or dropping of ordnance must be scheduled with FACSFAC VACAPES. Firing exercisesare not authorized without prior FACSFAC VACAPES approval. Small-arms (munitions .50-caliber and under) qualifications on ships do not require FACSFACVACAPES approval. The unit conducting small-arms fire is responsible for clearing their area. Non-hazardous/concurrent air, surface and subsurface operations, such as independent steamingexercise transits, navigation drills, deck-landing qualifications, and helicopter operations do notrequire a specific clearance or message request.3.18.2.3 Range Inspection ProceduresWithin the VACAPES OPAREA and warning areas, all units conducting firing or other hazardousactivity must comply with Section 8, Chapter 1 of CINCLANTFLTINST 3120.26 and all Fleet exercisepublications. FACSFAC VACAPES promulgates NOTAMs as applicable. OCEs may not authorizefiring or jettisoning of aerial targets unless the area is confirmed to be clear of nonparticipating civilianand military units.NASOCEANAINST 3710.19A requires all pilots using the Navy Dare County Bombing Range who areunfamiliar with a target to make a familiarization run to obtain a positive target identification. Flightleaders must require at least one familiarization run on unmanned targets (Palmetto Point and StumpyPoint, if they are operational) to ensure that the target is clear.3.18.2.4 Coordination ProceduresFACSFAC VACAPES provides Fleet surveillance and functional area support services that includescheduling, monitoring, and controlling DoD air, surface, and subsurface units operating in Warning Area105 (Narragansett Bay OPAREA) southward to W-122 (Cherry Point OPAREA). In addition, its missionincludes the following activities and procedures:Coordinate DoD use of oceanic airspace east of the warning areas to the Azores, and in the Gulf ofMexico.Schedule inland aircraft target ranges and military training routes.Provide air intercept control services.Schedule, coordinate, and provide range control for surface and airborne missile firing exercises.3-461 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and Safety Provide facility support, coordination, and information warfare (IW) opposition force (OPFOR)training equipment maintenance and scheduling support for Commander Second Fleet, CommanderCarrier Group Four, and associated opposition forces and data collection teams involved with majorjoint exercises and Fleet exercises for Atlantic Fleet assets. Coordinate, schedule, and oversee associated commercial and military aircraft services support(Atlantic and Pacific Fleet requirements). Act as regional airspace coordinator for DoN activities and the FAA. Act as a certified Class VI ATC facility. Provide full ATC services by direct interface with FAA and military/civil approach controls. Coordinate operations with USCG search and rescue, anti-immigration interdiction defense operations,federal drug interdiction teams, Maritime Homeland Security Operations, and Trusted Agent forSoutheast Air Defense Sector and Northeast Air Defense Sector. Provide facility support for Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Corona in the operation,maintenance, and services for the Large Area Tracking Range (LATR). Provide facility support to the Atlantic Fleet Exercise Coordination Center in the coordination andprioritization of all requests for assets, services, surface operating areas, special use airspace, andaltitude reservations required for integrated and joint military exercises.Close coordination between military and civilian ATC facilities enables effective, real-time, joint use ofthe VACAPES Range Complex warning areas. Under this procedure, regardless of the schedule for theuse of a military warning area, civilian aircraft may use warning area airspace until a military aircraft isactually enroute to that area. FACSFAC VACAPES has the responsibility to ensure civilian air carriertransit of SUA does not conflict with DoD operations and training. Specific guidelines, procedures, andrestrictions are outlined in FACSFACVACAPESINST 3120.1.SERIES.In the late 1990s, Naval Aviation Systems Team (Aircraft Division), Patuxent River, explored thefeasibility of using the Atlantic Test Range Complex to enhance naval aviation operator training. Thescope soon expanded to include naval (Navy and Marine Corps), Army, and Air Force training, andothers. The Commander, Fleet Forces Command endorsed the concept and the formation of theChesapeake Regional Ranges Cooperative (CRRC). Through a memorandum of agreement, the membersof the CRRC collaborate in supporting the RDT&E and interoperability requirements of DoD acquisitionmanagers. They also support and cooperate in all phases of warfighter readiness training and Joint Forceswarfare experimentation. Currently, the CRRC includes the following organizations:Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), Patuxent River, Maryland;NASA Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops, Virginia;Maryland Army National Guard, 2nd Battalion, 115th Infantry, Chestertown, MD;U.S. Army Garrison, Fort A.P. Hill, Bowling Green, Virginia;Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division, Dam Neck, Virginia; andU.S. Fleet Forces (USFF N7) (training ranges), Norfolk, VA.In addition to the coordination activities that occur among the members of the CRRC, the AirspaceManagement Branch, Range Operations Division provides aircraft control and traffic advisory forextensive airspace resources covering regions over the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean along thecoastline of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The branch also serves as liaison to FACSFACVACAPES, FAA, and Air Operations.3.18.2.5 Links to Other RangesFACSFAC VACAPES controls the offshore warning areas and operating area in the vicinity of theAtlantic Test Ranges. As a designated ATC facility, FACSFAC VACAPES is responsible for all aircraft(general, military, and commercial) operating within its area of responsibility, the scheduling of offshore3-462 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and Safetywarning areas and operating areas, and preparing NOTAMs and NOTMARs for broadcast by the FAAand USCG, respectively. FACSFAC VACAPES also coordinates ATC and flight monitoring.FACSFACVACAPESINST 3120.1 SERIES applies for all standard Fleet operations, such as training.For non-standard operations, such as RDT&E testing, NAWCAD assumes control and responsibility forthe safe conduct of NAWCAD exercises or operations within VACAPES Range Complex warning areas,pursuant to the current letter of agreement between FACSFAC VACAPES and NAWCAD.3.18.2.6 SchedulingVACAPES Range Complex is scheduled by FACSFAC VACAPES using a manual system that providesschedule information in a tabular format to the Fleet via naval message. This format is produced weeklyand changes are made to the schedule via naval message. The schedule is also posted in the same formatto the FACSFAC VACAPES web site.LATR services may be scheduled at the FACSFAC VACAPES weekly range scheduling meetingconducted on Wednesdays at 0900 at the NAS Oceana TACTS (Building 310). LATR is scheduled byevent number, two weeks in advance. Surface units requiring LATR to support training during smallerexercises and operations must request LATR Ship Instrumentation Packages at least five working daysprior to the underway period. Priorities for the use of the LATR by flying units are set by the fighter andstrike fighter commanders.Detailed scheduling procedures for the VACAPES OPAREA, warning areas, restricted areas, and rangesare established by FACSFAC VACAPES. Table 3.18-2 summarizes the scheduling activities for thevarious VACAPES Range Complex components.TABLE 3.18-2RANGE SCHEDULING ACTIVITIESRange Complex ComponentScheduling ActivityVACAPES OPAREAFACSFAC VACAPESSpecial Use AirspaceOceana TACTSa/ Source: DoN, 2006; U.S. Navy, 2000aNaval Surface Warfare CenterNAS Oceana, Virginia Beach, VA 234603.18.2.7 CommunicationsAll units and platforms operating within the VACAPES OPAREA are required to maintain positive twowayradio communication with VACAPES’ tactical call sign GIANTKILLER, FACSFAC’s primaryhigh-frequency and Link Coordination Windows, and Fleet Satellite High Communications. Uponclearance, units may conduct operations, both tactical and live-fire, at the discretion of the CommandingOfficer and without positive control from FACSFAC VACAPES. Call sign and frequency changes,authentications, and encryptions are in accordance with Fleet operating instructions or messages.Aircraft will not operate in FACSFAC VACAPES airspace without an operable, two-way, air-to-groundradio. Aircraft operating at less than 5,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) may experience difficulty inestablishing or maintaining two-way radio communication with GIANTKILLER and may be required toclimb to at least 5,000 feet MSL to reestablish communications with GIANTKILLER.Long-range aircraft, such as the P-3 and C-130, that enter the VACAPES OPAREA for extendedoperations are required to issue an operations normal report (OPS Normal) every hour while underGIANTKILLER’s jurisdiction. All other aircraft, including helicopters, are required to give OPS Normalreports every half-hour. Appropriate procedures for lost communications, transponder failure, andsearch-and-rescue are contained in FACSFACVACAPESINST 3120.1 SERIES.3-463 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and SafetyAll air-to-ground communications are recorded for possible use in an aircraft accident investigation or if aquestion arises about what information passed between range control and the pilot. In the event neitheroccurrence arises, the recordings are deleted and the tapes are reused.3.18.3 Environmental ConsequencesPublic safety impacts are significant if the general public is substantially endangered as a result of Navyactivities within the VACAPES Range Complex. For each training activity or group of similar activities,an estimate of risk to the general public was formulated, based on the Navy’s current set of safetyprocedures for range activities.Activities in the VACAPES Range Complex would be conducted in accordance with guidance providedin FACSFAC VACAPES Instruction 3120. The instruction provides operational and safety proceduresfor all normal range events. Its emphasis is on providing information to range users so they can operatesafely and avoid affecting non-military activities such as shipping, recreational boating, diving, andcommercial or recreational fishing.Several factors were considered in evaluating the effects of the Navy’s activities on public safety. Thesefactors include proximity to the public, access control, scheduling, public notification of events,frequency of events, duration of events, range safety procedures, operational control of training events,and safety history.3.18.3.1 No Action AlternativePublic SafetyUnder the No Action Alternative, Fleet training activities would continue to be conducted in theVACAPES OPAREA. Offshore operations would continue to expend ordnance and other materials,including bombs, missiles, NEPM, shells, bullets, marine markers (smoke floats), and targets from vesselsand aircraft. The ordnance used in offshore operations would include high-explosive, wholly inert, andnon-explosive practice munitions.As under current conditions, a range safety officer (RSO) would always be on duty while activities werein progress. The RSO would halt any activity if a potentially unsafe condition arose. The continued useof RSOs under the No Action Alternative would ensure that projectiles, targets, and missiles wereoperated safely, and that air operations and other hazardous Fleet training activities were safely executedin controlled areas.The Navy would continue to implement its standard range safety procedures, which are proven effectivein avoiding risks to the public and to Navy activities. When aircraft or surface vessels fire ordnance,range procedures and safety practices would ensure there were no vessels or aircraft in the intended pathor impact area of the ordnance. Before any training event would be allowed to proceed, the target areawould be determined to be clear using ship sensors, visual surveillance of the range from aircraft andrange safety boats, and radar and acoustic data.The hazard footprint for the ordnance to be used is based on the range of the weapon, and includes a largesafety buffer to account for the item going off-target or functioning prematurely. For activities with alarge hazard footprint (for example, MISSILEXs), special sea and air surveillance measures would betaken to search for, detect, and clear the area of intended activities. Aircraft would continue to berequired to make a preliminary pass over the intended target area to ensure that it was clear of boats,divers, or other non-participants. Aircraft carrying ordnance would not be allowed to over-fly surfacevessels.Target areas would be cleared of personnel prior to conducting training, so the only public health andsafety issue would be in the very rare occasion when an activity exceeded the safety area boundaries.3-464 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and SafetyRisks to public health and safety would be further reduced by providing termination systems on somemissiles. In cases where a weapon system did not have a flight termination capability, the target areawould be determined to be clear of unauthorized vessels and aircraft, based on the flight distance thevehicle can travel, plus a 5-mile area beyond the system performance parameters.There would be about 210 helicopter sorties annually within the VACAPES Study Area that wouldinvolve towing either the MK-104 or MK-105 mine-sweeping system in the water (see Table 2.2-4).These systems would be deployed from the dock at NS Norfolk, and MH-53 or MH-60S helicopterswould tow the equipment in the water while flying at 75 to 100 feet above water level for 15 to 20 milesinto the Chesapeake Bay. If the aircraft encountered a commercial or recreational vessel, the aircreweither would stop forward progress or maneuver the aircraft safely around the vessel before continuing themission.All training activities would continue to comply with DoD Directive 4540.01, “Use of InternationalAirspace by U.S. Military Aircraft and for Missile/Projectile Firings” (DoD, 2007). These documentsspecify procedures for conducting aircraft operations and firing missiles and projectiles. The missile andprojectile firing areas would continue to “be selected so that trajectories are clear of established oceanicair routes or areas of known surface or air activity” (DoD, 2007).Recreational diving activities within the VACAPES OPAREA takes place primarily at known divingsites, including shipwrecks and artificial reefs. The locations of these popular dive sites are welldocumented,dive boats are typically well-marked, and diver-down flags would be visible from andavoided by ships conducting training under the No Action Alternative. As a result, interactions betweentraining activities within the offshore areas and scuba diving would be minimized. Similar knowledgeand avoidance of popular fishing areas would help reduce interactions with recreational anglers.Most naval training conducted under the No Action Alternative would occur well out to sea, while mostcivilian activity, other than shipping and some commercial fishing, is conducted within a few miles ofland. This separation would help prevent interferences among military and civilian activities and reducethe potential for incidents that would threaten the safety of civilians.FACSFAC VACAPES would continue to use its ATC function, and to work with the FAA, to provideseparation between military aircraft and civilian aircraft in the study area. The scheduling andcoordination activities of FACSFAC VACAPES with agencies such as the USCG and interdiction teamsfor illegal immigrants and drugs would continue to ensure that neither agents nor the individuals theywere assisting or seeking would be endangered by training activities. Continued implementation of theSWAP program would continue to enhance civilian aviation during inclement weather.The Navy would continue to recover many of the targets that were used in training so that they would notpose a collision risk. Unrecoverable pieces of MEM are typically small (such as the 19-inch-long, 3-inchdiameterMK-25 marker), constructed of soft materials (such as target cardboard boxes or tethered targetballoons), or intended sink to the bottom after their useful function was completed (such as shot-up 55-gallon steel drums), so that they would not represent a collision risk to civilian vessels. Additionalinformation on the fate of these materials is provided in Section 3.2.The Navy would continue to temporarily limit public access to areas where there was a risk of injury orproperty damage through the use of NOTAMs and NOTMARs. Public safety would continue to beenhanced by providing the public with information that would let them take an active role in avoidinginteractions with naval training and ensuring their own safety.All of these public safety measures were developed over a long period of time of public interaction. Theyare all proven effective, and are currently employed on a routine basis in the VACAPES Range Complex.3-465 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and SafetyTheir continued implementation under the No Action Alternative would ensure that no changes in, and noadverse effects to, public safety would occur.Public HealthManagement of MEM in conjunction with Navy training exercises in the VACAPES Study Area isaddressed in Section 3.2. While continued releases of hazardous materials, such as metals, hydraulicfluid, fuel and other hydrocarbons, propellants, and unconsumed explosives would occur, the liquid andsoluble constituents of concern would quickly disperse in the water column. Solid constituents ofconcern would rapidly settle to the ocean floor and soon become buried in sediment, coated by corrosion,or encrusted by benthic organisms. Because of the very small quantities of these materials relative to theextent of the sea ranges, the effective dilution volume provided by the ocean, and the remoteness of thesea ranges relative to human populations, their effect on human health would not be detectable. Detailsregarding the fate and transport of MEM constituents are provided in Section 3.2.Sources of EMR include radar, navigational aids, and electronic warfare (EW) systems. These systemsare the same as, or similar to, civilian navigational aids and radars at local airports and television weatherstations throughout the United States. EW systems emit EMR similar to that from cell phones, hand-heldradios, commercial radio stations, and television stations. SOPs are in place to protect Navy personneland the public from EMR hazards. These include setting the heights and angles of EMR transmissions toavoid direct exposure, posting warning signs, establishing safe operating levels, and activating warninglights when radar systems are operational. Measures also are in place to avoid excessive exposure fromEMR emitted by military aircraft. The No Action Alternative would not result in any change in EMRtypes or use, and would not result in any change in impacts on public health.Laser hazards also exist within the VACAPES Study Area, where these high-energy light sources areused for precision range finding and by target-designation systems for guided munitions. Acomprehensive safety program exists for the use of lasers. SOPs protect individuals from the hazard ofsevere eye injury caused by the nature of the laser light. The completion of a laser safety course, use ofprotective goggles, maintenance of a medical surveillance program, and implementation of mishapreporting procedures are required by all units conducting laser training. Laser safety requirements foraircraft require a dry run to ensure that target areas are clear. In addition, during actual laser use, theaircraft run-in headings are restricted to preclude inadvertent lasing of areas where personnel may bepresent. Continued use of these procedures would ensure that changes in public health relating to the useof lasers would not occur with the implementation of the No Action Alternative.SummaryIn accordance with the NEPA, naval activity in U.S. territory under the No Action Alternative would haveno significant impact on public health and safety. In accordance with EO 12114, naval activity in nonterritorialwaters would not cause harm to public safety.3.18.3.2 Alternative 1Under Alternative 1, training and RDT&E operations would be increased or modified to the minimalextent possible to meet Navy and DoD current and near-term operational training and RDT&Erequirements. Under this alternative, force structure changes would be accommodated and range complexcapabilities would be enhanced. To accommodate recent force structure changes with the introduction ofthe MH-60S Seahawk Multi-Mission Helicopter, training areas would be established, including limitedcapability to support Organic Mine Countermeasures (OMCM).In addition to maintaining current levels of operations (the No Action Alternative baseline), Alternative 1at the VACAPES Range Complex would support the FRTP.3-466 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and SafetyAs summarized in Table 2.2-5 and detailed in Table 2.2-4, 2.2-6, and 2.2-7, the increased training tempowould result in more steaming hours by vessels, more sorties flown by fixed-wing aircraft andhelicopters, more use of explosive munitions and NEPM, more underwater detonations, and moredeployment of expendable materials. All of these activities have the potential to pose a risk to publichealth and safety. However, the Navy would continue to apply the risk reduction measures that weredescribed for the No Action Alternative. These measures would be effective in protecting the public sothat no measurable changes in accidents, injuries, or illnesses would be expected with the implementationof Alternative 1.Increased use of the MH-60S and training to support OMCM would pose many of the same types of risksthat were described for the No Action Alternative, and the measures described for that alternative wouldbe effective in protecting public health and safety. Additional risks posed by these activities would beassociated with increased aircraft overflights and ordnance. Safety measures that would be implementedfor exercises in support of OMCM would include Avoiding shipping lanes, popular dive sites, shipwrecks, and recreational fishing areas when selectingtraining area locations; If a training area was fouled by recreational pursuits, cancelling or delaying training until the trainingarea was clear; and Using the live fire mine countermeasures platforms (RAMICS, AMNS, and MK-103) only in W-50Aand W-50C because they already are designated as live-fire areas.As a result of these measures, there would not be measurable changes in accidents, injuries, or illnessescompared to the No Action Alternative.In accordance with the NEPA, naval activity in U.S. territory under Alternative 1 would have nosignificant impact on public health and safety. In accordance with EO 12114, naval activity in nonterritorialwaters would not cause harm to public safety.3.18.3.3 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)Training events proposed under Alternative 2 would have all the components of Alternative 1, but withadditional increases in many operations (except for a decrease in the use of high-explosive bombs) andthe designation of additional mine warfare training areas. The safety procedures implemented under thisalternative would be the same as those described for the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, andwould be equally effective in protecting public health and safety. Therefore, for the types of operationsthat would have been included in the other alternatives, Alternative 2 would not result in any measurablechanges in accidents, injuries, or illnesses.As summarized in Tables 2.2-5 and 2.2-7, Alternative 2 would result in a substantial decrease in the useof high-explosive bombs. This alternative would eliminate the use of MK-84 bombs (944.8 pounds netexplosive weight [NEW]), MK-82 bombs (192.2 pounds NEW), and MK-20 bombs (109.7 poundsNEW), and would reduce the numbers of MK-83 bombs (415.8 pounds NEW) used in bombing exercisesby 85 percent. However, these changes would not result in any reductions in risk to public health andsafety. Because of the Navy’s strict implementation of safety measures, current use of these highexplosivebombs has not resulted in any civilian deaths or injuries, and their reduced use underAlternative 2 would not change this safety record.Alternative 2 would establish six separate MIW training areas, including two in the lower ChesapeakeBay and four in the VACAPES OPAREA. Safety measures that would be implemented for theestablishment and use of these training areas would include3-467 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and Safety Avoiding shipping lanes, popular dive sites, shipwrecks, and recreational fishing areas when selectingtraining area locations; If a training area was fouled by recreational pursuits, cancelling or delaying training until the trainingarea was clear; and Using the live fire mine countermeasures platforms (RAMICS, AMNS, and MK-103) only in W-50Aand W-50C because they already are designated as live-fire areas.As a result of these measures, there would not be measurable changes in accidents, injuries, or illnessescompared to the No Action Alternative.In accordance with the NEPA, naval activity in U.S. territory under Alternative 2 would have nosignificant impact on public health and safety. In accordance with EO 12114, naval activity in nonterritorialwaters would not cause harm to public safety.3.18.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental EffectsThere would not be any unavoidable significant environmental effects on public health and safety as aresult of implementation of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2.3.18.5 Summary of Environmental Effects (NEPA and EO 12114)As summarized in Table 3.18-3, No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would have nosignificant impact on public health and safety. Furthermore, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1,and Alternative 2 would not cause harm to public health and safety in non-territorial waters.3-468 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and SafetyTABLE 3.18-3SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON PUBLICHEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREAAlternative andStressorNo ActionVesselmovements(disturbance andcollisions)Aircraft overflights(disturbance andstrikes)Mine warfaredeployment andrecoveryNon-explosivepractice munitionsUnderwaterdetonations and highexplosiveordnanceExpended materialsElectromagneticradiation (EMR) andlasersImpactconclusionAlternative 1Vesselmovements(disturbance andcollisions)Aircraft overflights(disturbance andstrikes)Mine warfaredeployment andrecoveryNon-explosivepractice munitionsNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)SOPs are in place to avoid civilian craft.Use of NOTMARs would provide thepublic with information that would enablethem to avoid interactions with navaltraining and help ensure their own safety.FACSFAC VACAPES would provideseparation between military and civilianaircraft. Use of NOTAMs would providecivilian aviators with information thatwould enable them to avoid interactionswith naval training and help ensure theirown safety.SOPs are in place to avoid civilianinteractions during mine countermeasureand mine neutralization activities.SOPs are in place to exclude civilianactivities from areas of NEPM use.SOPs are in place to ensure ranges areclear before ordnance deliveries anddetonations begin.Most large pieces would be recovered.Most other pieces would be small or soft,or would sink to the bottom after use.Hazardous materials or hazardous wastewould only be released into the water insmall volumes and quickly would bediluted.SOPs are in place to protect Navypersonnel and the public from hazardsresulting from the use of EMR and lasers.No significant impact to public health andsafety.SOPs are in place to avoid civilian craft.Use of NOTMARs would provide thepublic with information that would enablethem to avoid interactions with navaltraining and help ensure their own safety.FACSFAC VACAPES would provideseparation between military and civilianaircraft. Use of NOTAMs would providecivilian aviators with information thatwould enable them to avoid interactionswith naval training and help ensure theirown safety.SOPs are in place to avoid civilianinteractions during mine countermeasureand mine neutralization activities.SOPs are in place to exclude civilianactivities from areas of NEPM use.Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)SOPs are in place to avoid civilian craft.Use of NOTMARs would provide thepublic with information that would enablethem to avoid interactions with navaltraining and help ensure their own safety.FACSFAC VACAPES would provideseparation between military and civilianaircraft. Use of NOTAMs would providecivilian aviators with information thatwould enable them to avoid interactionswith naval training and help ensure theirown safety.SOPs are in place to avoid civilianinteractions during mine countermeasureand mine neutralization activities.SOPs are in place to exclude civilianactivities from areas of NEPM use.SOPs are in place to ensure ranges areclear before ordnance deliveries anddetonations begin.Most large pieces would be recovered.Most other pieces would be small or soft,or would sink to the bottom after use.Hazardous materials or hazardous wastewould only be released into the water insmall volumes and quickly would bediluted.SOPs are in place to protect Navypersonnel and the public from hazardsresulting from the use of EMR and lasers.No harm to public health and safety.SOPs are in place to avoid civilian craft.Use of NOTMARs would provide thepublic with information that would enablethem to avoid interactions with navaltraining and help ensure their own safety.FACSFAC VACAPES would provideseparation between military and civilianaircraft. Use of NOTAMs would providecivilian aviators with information thatwould enable them to avoid interactionswith naval training and help ensure theirown safety.SOPs are in place to avoid civilianinteractions during mine countermeasureand mine neutralization activities.SOPs are in place to exclude civilianactivities from areas of NEPM use.3-469 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.18 – Public Health and SafetyTABLE 3.18-3 (Continued)SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES ON PUBLICHEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREAAlternative andStressorNEPA(Territorial Waters, 0 to 12 nm)Executive Order 12114(Non-Territorial Waters, >12 nm)Underwaterdetonations and highexplosiveordnanceExpended materialsEMR and lasersImpactconclusionAlternative 2Vesselmovements(disturbance andcollisions)Aircraft overflights(disturbance andstrikes)Mine warfaredeployment andrecoveryNon-explosivepractice munitionsUnderwaterdetonations and highexplosiveordnanceExpended materialsEMR and lasersImpactconclusionSOPs are in place to ensure ranges areclear before ordnance deliveries anddetonations begin.Most large pieces would be recovered.Most other pieces would be small or soft,or would sink to the bottom after use.Hazardous materials or hazardous wastewould only be released into the water insmall volumes and quickly would bediluted.SOPs are in place to protect Navypersonnel and the public from hazardsresulting from the use of EMR and lasers.No significant impact to public health andsafety.SOPs are in place to avoid civilian craft.Use of NOTMARs would provide thepublic with information that would enablethem to avoid interactions with navaltraining and help ensure their own safety.FACSFAC VACAPES would provideseparation between military and civilianaircraft. Use of NOTAMs would providecivilian aviators with information thatwould enable them to avoid interactionswith naval training and help ensure theirown safety.SOPs are in place to avoid civilianinteractions during mine countermeasureand mine neutralization activities.SOPs are in place to exclude civilianactivities from areas of NEPM use.SOPs are in place to ensure ranges areclear before ordnance deliveries anddetonations begin.Most large pieces would be recovered.Most other pieces would be small or soft,or would sink to the bottom after use.Hazardous materials or hazardous wastewould only be released into the water insmall volumes and quickly would bediluted.SOPs are in place to protect Navypersonnel and the public from hazardsresulting from the use of EMR and lasers.No significant impact to public health andsafety.SOPs are in place to ensure ranges areclear before ordnance deliveries anddetonations begin.Most large pieces would be recovered.Most other pieces would be small or soft,or would sink to the bottom after use.Hazardous materials or hazardous wastewould only be released into the water insmall volumes and quickly would bediluted.SOPs are in place to protect Navypersonnel and the public from hazardsresulting from the use of EMR and lasers.No harm to public health and safety.SOPs are in place to avoid civilian craft.Use of NOTMARs would provide thepublic with information that would enablethem to avoid interactions with navaltraining and help ensure their own safety.FACSFAC VACAPES would provideseparation between military and civilianaircraft. Use of NOTAMs would providecivilian aviators with information thatwould enable them to avoid interactionswith naval training and help ensure theirown safety.SOPs are in place to avoid civilianinteractions during mine countermeasureand mine neutralization activities.SOPs are in place to exclude civilianactivities from areas of NEPM use.SOPs are in place to ensure ranges areclear before ordnance deliveries anddetonations begin.Most large pieces would be recovered.Most other pieces would be small or soft,or would sink to the bottom after use.Hazardous materials or hazardous wastewould only be released into the water insmall volumes and quickly would bediluted.SOPs are in place to protect Navypersonnel and the public from hazardsresulting from the use of EMR and lasers.No harm to public health and safety.3-470 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summary3.19 SUMMARY OF ATLANTIC FLEET ACTIVE SONAR TRAINING AND AGGREGATE IMPACTS INTHE VACAPES RANGE COMPLEXThe VACAPES Range Complex EIS/OEIS incorporates by reference the Final Atlantic Fleet ActiveSonar Training (AFAST) Environmental Impact Statement / Overseas Environmental Impact Statement(EIS/OEIS) (DoN, 2008). Because sonar use and sonar effects cross and go beyond OPAREAboundaries, the Navy comprehensively analyzed all Atlantic Fleet sonar training in a separate FinalEIS/OEIS. Active sonar training, however, is an integral component of fleet readiness training withineach range complex; therefore, the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS analysis and conclusions are summarizedherein so the direct and indirect impacts of all components of fleet training in the VACAPES RangeComplex can be comprehensively evaluated under NEPA and EO 12114. The reader should refer to theAFAST Final EIS/OEIS (available at http://afasteis.gcsaic.com) for the full description and analysis ofactive sonar activities along the East Coast and within the Gulf of Mexico. The Final AFAST EIS/OEISwas released to the public on December 12, 2008 (73 FR 75715). The Navy’s consultation with NMFS,under the MMPA, concluded when the Final Rule was filed for public inspection with the Office of theFederal Register (74 FR 4844) on January 22, 2009 and the annual Letter of Authorization wassubsequently issued. The Navy’s consultation with NMFS, in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA,concluded when the Biological Opinion was signed on January 16, 2009 and the annual Incidental TakeStatement was subsequently issued.The Final AFAST EIS/OEIS analyzes the potential environmental effects associated with the designationof sonar use areas and the use of mid- and high-frequency active sonar technology and the improvedextended echo ranging (IEER) system during Atlantic Fleet training exercises. The IEER system consistsof an explosive source sonobuoy (AN/SSQ-110A) and an air deployable active receiver (ADAR)sonobuoy (AN/SSQ-101). The Navy is developing the Advanced Extended Echo Ranging (AEER)system as a replacement to the IEER system. The AEER system would use a new active sonobuoy(AN/SSQ-125) that utilizes a tonal (or a ping) versus an impulsive (or explosive) sound source as areplacement for the AN/SSQ-110A. The AEER system will still use the ADAR sonobuoy as the systemsreceiver. In addition, the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS incorporates research, development, test, and evaluation(RDT&E) active sonar activities similar, and coincident with, Atlantic Fleet training. For the purposes ofthe Final AFAST EIS/OEIS, “active sonar activities” refers to training, maintenance, and RDT&Eactivities involving mid- and high-frequency active sonar and explosive source sonobuoy (AN/SSQ-110A) During active sonar activities, surface ships, submarines, helicopters, and marine patrol aircraftuse active sonar during Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), Mine Warfare (MIW), objectdetection/navigation, and maintenance events. The activities involving active sonar described in the FinalAFAST EIS/OEIS are not new and do not involve significant changes in systems, tempo, or intensityfrom past activities.The Navy analyzed four alternatives in the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. Under Alternative 1, active sonarareas would be designated using an environmental analysis to determine locations that would minimizeenvironmental effects to biological resources while still meeting operational requirements. UnderAlternative 2, active sonar training areas would be designated using the same environmental analysisconducted under Alternative 1; however, these areas would be adjusted seasonally to minimize effects tomarine resources. Under Alternative 3, sonar training would not occur within certain environmentallysensitive areas, which would be designated areas of increased awareness. The No Action Alternative canbe regarded as continuing with the present course of action. Under the No Action Alternative, the Navywould continue conducting active sonar activities within and adjacent to existing OPAREAs rather thandesignate active sonar areas or areas of increased awareness.The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment), considered the following factors: theCongressional mandates in 10 U.S.C. § 5062; the Navy, DoD, and other federal agencies’ operational,3-471 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summarytesting, and training requirements; environmental impacts; and comments received during the EIS/OEISprocess in determining whether and how to designate areas where active sonar activities would occurwithin and adjacent to existing OPAREAs located along the East Coast of the U.S. and in the Gulf ofMexico. After carefully weighing all of these factors and analyzing the data presented in the EIS/OEIS,the DASN (E) determined that the Preferred Alternative, the No-Action Alternative, best meets therequirements for the proposed AFAST active sonar activities. The DASN (E) signed the Navy’s Recordof Decision (74 FR 5650) on January 23, 2009.3.19.1 Summary of Sonar Activities in the VACAPES Range ComplexDescription of Sonar SystemsThere are two basic types of sonar: passive and active. Passive sonars are only used to listen to incoming sounds. Passive sonars do not emit sound energyinto the water and cannot acoustically affect the environment. Active sonars emit acoustic energy to obtain information concerning a distant object from the reflectedsound energy. Active sonars are the most effective detection systems against modern ultra-quietsubmarines and sea mines.Table 3.19-1 identifies the active acoustic systems analyzed in the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. The systemsthat were not analyzed include systems that are typically operated at frequencies greater than 200 kHz,such as the AN/AQS-14 or AN/AQS-20. Since active sonar sources operating at 200 kHz or higherattenuate rapidly and are at or outside the upper frequency limit of marine mammals with ultrasonichearing, further consideration and modeling of these higher frequency acoustic sources were notwarranted. Refer to Section 2.2 and Appendix C in the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS for more information onsonar systems used during Atlantic fleet training.TABLE 3.19-1ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS ANALYZED IN THE FINAL AFAST EIS/OEISSystems That Were AnalyzedSystem Frequency Associated Platform System DescriptionAN/SQS-53 3.5 kHz DDG and CG hullmountedsonarmode and 30% track modeASW search, detection, and localization; utilized 70% in searchAN/AQS-13 1 10.0 kHz Helicopter dipping sonar ASW sonar lowered from hovering helicopter (approximately 10pings/dip, 30 seconds between pings)AN/AQS-22 4.1 kHz Helicopter dipping sonar ASW sonar lowered from hovering helicopter (approximately 10pings/dip, 30 seconds between pings)Explosive sourcesonobuoy (AN/SSQ-110A)ImpulsivebroadbandMPA deployedASW system consists of explosive acoustic source buoy (containstwo 4.1 lb charges) and expendable passive receiver sonobuoyAN/SSQ-125 MF MPA deployed ASW system consists of active sonobuoy and expendable passivereceiver sonobuoyAN/SQQ-32 HF MCM over the side system Detect, classify, and localize bottom and moored minesAN/BQS-15 HF Submarine navigational Only used when entering and leaving portsonarAN/SQS-56 7.5 kHz FFG hull-mounted sonar ASW search, detection, localization; utilized 70% in search modeand 30% track modeMK-48 Torpedo HF Submarine fired exercisetorpedoRecoverable and non-explosive exercise torpedo; sonar is activeapproximately 15 min per torpedo runMK-46/MK-54TorpedoHFSurface ship and aircraftfired exercise torpedoRecoverable and non-explosive exercise torpedo; sonar is activeapproximately 15 min per torpedo run3-472 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryTABLE 3.19-1ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS ANALYZED IN THE FINAL AFAST EIS/OEIS (Continued)Systems That Were AnalyzedAN/SLQ-25 (NIXIE) MF DDG, CG, and FFG towed Towed countermeasure to avert localization and torpedo attacksarray(approximately 20 mins per use)AN/SQS-53AN/SQS-56(Kingfisher)andAN/BQQ-10 andAN/BQQ-5Tonal sonobuoy(DICASS)(AN/SSQ-62)ADC MK-1, MK-2,MK-3 and MK-4Submarine deployedcountermeasure(NAE)MFDDG, CG, and FFG hullmountedsonar (objectdetection)MFSubmarine hull-mountedsonar8 kHz Helicopter and MPAdeployedMFMFSubmarine deployedcountermeasureSubmarine deployedcountermeasureDescription of Active Sonar ActivitiesOnly used when entering and leaving portASW search and attack (approximately 1 ping every 2 hours whenin use)Remotely commanded expendable sonar-equipped buoy(approximately 12 pings, 30 secs between pings)Expendable acoustic countermeasure (approximately 20 mins peruse)Expendable acoustic countermeasure (approximately 20 mins peruse)Because the Navy conducts many different types of Independent ULT, Coordinated ULT, Strike Grouptraining, maintenance, and RDT&E active sonar activities, the Navy grouped similar events to formrepresentative scenarios for analysis in the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. Specific active sonar events aredescribed in more detail in Appendix C of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. Note that specific exercise namesand other details occasionally change as required to meet the current operational needs. Table 3.19-2summarizes the active sonar scenarios that typically occur in the VACAPES Study area and seaward.Refer to Section 2.3 and Appendix C in the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS for more detail on Atlantic fleetsonar training events.In the VACAPES Study Area, all ASW training would occur beyond 12 nm from shore. A limitedamount of sonar use during maintenance and navigation/object detection would occur within 12 nm ofshore.3.19.2 Summary of Environmental ConsequencesIn the following sections, a summary of the environmental consequences due to sonar activities in theVACAPES Study Area is provided by resource area. This is followed by a discussion of the aggregateenvironmental consequences by resource area due to the combined effects of sonar activities presented inthe Final AFAST EIS/OEIS and the VACAPES Range Complex training events, RDT&E activities, andrange enhancements proposed in this EIS/OEIS. Only the resource areas potentially impacted by sonaractivities are presented below. If other resources are potentially impacted by range complex activities, theenvironmental consequences are discussed previously in this chapter.For each resource area potentially affected by sonar activities, the relevant section of the Final AFASTEIS/OEIS is referenced. The reader should refer to the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS for the full discussionand analysis of environmental consequences due to sonar activities.3.19.2.1 Bathymetry and SedimentsSummary of Environmental Consequences due to AFASTPotential effects to bathymetry and sediments are discussed in Section 4.3 of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS.Any potential effects are due to Military Expended Materials (MEM) during sonar activities and notrecovered. Materials expended during sonar activities are summarized in Table 3.19-3.3-473 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryBecause a limited quantity of materials would be expended over a large operational area, there would beno significant accumulation of expended material. Materials on the sea floor would eventually be coveredby sediments or be overgrown by marine life. Under the AFAST selected alternative, therefore, therewould be no significant impact to bathymetry or sediments in territorial waters due to expended materialsor sediment displacement. In addition, there would be no significant harm to bathymetry or sediments innon-territorial waters due to expended materials or sediment displacement.Aggregate Environmental ConsequencesThe potential impacts to bathymetry and sediments due to range complex activities (other than sonaractivities) are presented in Section 3.1 of this EIS/OEIS. Under all alternatives presented in thisEIS/OEIS, w hen the potential impacts due to sonar activities are included with the potential impacts dueto range complex activities, there would be no significant impact to bathymetry or sediments in territorialwaters due to expended materials or sediment displacement. In addition, there would be no significantharm to bathymetry or sediments in non-territorial waters due to expended materials or sedimentdisplacement.3-474 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryEventNameTABLE 3.19-2SUMMARY OF ACTIVE SONAR ACTIVITIES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA AND SEAWARDTraining EventScenariosOne or two surfaceships (CG, DDG,and FFG)conducting ASWlocalization andtracking training.EventsperYear*Length ofOverallEventTypicalEvent AreaDimensionsEquipment or Action Equipment Use or Action perEventSurface ship MFA ASWsonar (AN/SQS-53 orAN/SQS-56)Acoustic countermeasures(AN/SLQ-25 NIXIE,MK-1, MK-2, MK-3,MK-4, or Noise AcousticEmitter)MK-46 or MK-54TorpedoMK-39 EMATT or MK-30 target1 to 2 ships (CG, DDG, or FFG)pinging 1 to 3 hours each2 hours per NIXIE20 minutes per MK-1, MK-2, MK-3, or MK-4Noise Acoustic EmitterExercise torpedoes could be usedfor RDT&E1 EMATT or MK-30(recoverable) per exercise may beused as a targetEffectsConsideredMFA sonarexposureMFA sonarexposure andexpended materialsHFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsULT- Surface Ship ASWOne ship (CG,DDG, and FFG)conducting objectdetection duringtransit in/out of portfor training andsafety duringreduced visibility.69 2 to 6hours68 1 to 2hours5 NM x 10NMto30 NM x 40NM5 NM x 10NMDirect strike andexpended materialsVessel movement 1 to 2 ships maneuvering Vessel strikeSurface ship MFA ASWsonar (AN/SQS-53 orAN/SQS-56 Kingfisher)operated in objectdetection mode1 ship (CG, DDG, or FFG)pinging for 1 to 2 hoursMFA sonarexposureVessel movement 1 ship maneuvering Vessel strikeULT- Surface ShipObject Detection3-475 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryEventNameTABLE 3.19-2SUMMARY OF ACTIVE SONAR ACTIVITIES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA AND SEAWARD(Continued)Training EventScenariosOne helicopterconducting ASWtraining usingdipping sonar orsonobuoysEventsperYear*Length ofOverallEventTypicalEvent AreaDimensionsEquipment or Action Equipment Use or Action perEventHelicopter dipping sonar(AN/AQS-13 orAN/AQS-22)Tonal sonobuoy(DICASS)(AN/SSQ-62)Passive sonobuoy(DIFAR)AN/SSQ-53D/EMK-46 or MK-54Torpedo1 helicopter dipping up to twohours (10 pings per five-minutedip)Up to 4 tonalsonobuoys (DICASS)Number of sonobuoys deployedcan varyexercise torpedoes could be usedfor RDT&EEffectsConsideredMFA sonarexposureMFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsExpendedmaterials anddirect strikeHFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsULT- Helicopter ASWOne submarineconducting ASWand SUW trainingusing passive andactive sonar.25 2 to 4hours20 NM x 30NM10 2 to 3 days 30 NM x 40NMMK-39 EMATT or MK-30 targetSubmarine MFA sonar(AN/BQQ-10)1 EMATT or MK-30 (recoverable)per exercise may be used as atarget1 submarine pinging once per twohours (average 36 pings per event)MK-48 Torpedo Number of exercise torpedoescould be used in a single RDT&Eevent could varyDirect strike andexpended materialsMFA sonarexposureHFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsVessel movement 1 submarine maneuvering Vessel strikeMK-39 EMATT or MK-30 target1 EMATT or MK-30 (recoverable)per exercise may be used as atargetDirect strike andexpended materialsULT- Submarine ASWTactical page buoy One tactical page buoy may bedeployedExpendedmaterials3-476 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryEventNameTABLE 3.19-2SUMMARY OF ACTIVE SONAR ACTIVITIES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA AND SEAWARD(Continued)Training EventScenariosOne submarineoperating sonar fornavigation andobject detectionduring transit in/outof port duringreduced visibility.EventsperYear*Length ofOverallEventTypicalEvent AreaDimensionsEquipment or Action Equipment Use or Action perEventSubmarine MFA andHFA object detectionsonar(AN/BQQ-10 orAN/BQS-15)EffectsConsidered1 submarine pinging 1 to 2 hours MFA and HFAsonar exposureULT- SubmarineNavigationalOne MPAconducting ASWsubmarinelocalization andtracking trainingusing tonalsonobuoys.78 1 to 2hours5 NM x 10NMVessel movement 1 submarine maneuvering Vessel strikeTonal sonobuoy(DICASS)(AN/SSQ-62)Passive sonobuoy(DIFAR) AN/SSQ-53D/EMK-46 or MK-54TorpedoUp to 10 tonalsonobuoys (DICASS)Number of sonobuoys deployedcan varyexercise torpedoes could be usedfor RDT&EMFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsExpendedmaterials anddirect strikeHFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsULT- MPA ASW (tonal sonobuoy)One MPAconducting ASWsubmarinelocalization andtracking trainingusing explosivesource sonobuoy(AN/SSQ-110A).79 2 to 8hours34 2 to 8hours30 NM x 30NM to60 NM x 60NM60 NM x 60NMMK-39 EMATT(repeater) and or MK-30Targetexplosive sourcesonobuoy (AN/SSQ-110A)receiver (ADAR)sonobuoy (AN/SSQ-101)1 EMATT or MK-30 (recoverable)per exercise may be used as atargetdirect strike andexpended materialsUp to 14 AN/SQ-110A sonobuoys Explosivebyproducts,pressure waveexposure,impulsive soundexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsUp to 5 AN/SSQ-101 sonobuoys Direct Strike andexpended materialsULT- MPA ASW (explosivesource sonobuoy3-477 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryEventNameTABLE 3.19-2SUMMARY OF ACTIVE SONAR ACTIVITIES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA AND SEAWARD(Continued)Training EventScenariosAn exercise withthree DDGs, oneCG, one FFG, twoto three helicopters,one to twosubmarines, andone MPAEventsperYear*Length ofOverallEventTypicalEvent AreaDimensionsEquipment or Action Equipment Use or Action perEventSurface ship MFA ASWsonar (AN/SQS-53 orAN/SQS-56)Helicopter ASW dippingsonar (AN/AQS-13 orAN/AQS-22)Submarine MFA sonar(AN/BQQ-5 or AN/BQQ-10)Acousticcountermeasures(AN/SLQ-25 NIXIE,MK-2, MK-3, or NoiseAcoustic Emitter)Tonal sonobuoy(DICASS)(AN/SSQ-62)EffectsConsidered5 ships pinging for up to 10 hours MFA sonarexposure1 helicopter dipping up to one hour(10 pings per five-minute dip)1-2 submarines pinging up to 6times each2 hours per NIXIE20 minutes per MK-2, MK-3, andNoise Acoustic EmitterHelicopters and/or MPA droppingup to 36 sonobuoysMFA sonarexposureMFA sonarexposureMFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsMFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsCoordinated ULT- Integrated ASW Course (IAC)An exercise withtwo DDGs withembarkedhelicopters, and onesubmarine.0.2 2 to 5 days 120NM X60NM3 2 to 3 days 30 NM x 30NMPassive sonobuoy(DIFAR) AN/SSQ-53D/ESurface ship MFA ASWsonar (AN/SQS-53 orAN/SQS-56)Helicopter ASW dippingsonar (AN/AQS-13 orAN/AQS-22)Submarine MFA sonar(AN/BQQ-5 or AN/BQQ-10)Number of sonobuoys deployedcan varyExpendedmaterials anddirect strike2-3 ships pinging for several hours MFA sonarexposure1 helicopter dipping up to 6 hours(10 pings per five-minute dip)1 submarine pinging up to twotimesMFA sonarexposureMFA sonarexposureCoordinated ULT- GroupSail3-478 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryEventNameTABLE 3.19-2SUMMARY OF ACTIVE SONAR ACTIVITIES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA AND SEAWARD(Continued)Training EventScenariosIntermediate levelbattle groupexercise designed tocreate a cohesiveCSG/ ESG prior todeployment orJTFEX. ThreeDDGs, one FFG,helicopters, oneMPA, and twosubmarines.EventsperYear*0.2trainingeventsandsimilarRDT&ELength ofOverallEventTypicalEvent AreaDimensions21 days 60 NM x120 NMEquipment or Action Equipment Use or Action perEventAcousticcountermeasures(AN/SLQ-25 NIXIE,MK-2, MK-3, or NoiseAcoustic Emitter)Tonal sonobuoy(DICASS)(AN/SSQ-62)Passive sonobuoy(DIFAR) AN/SSQ-53D/E2 hours per NIXIE20 minutes per MK-2, MK-3, andNoise Acoustic Emitter1 helicopter dropping up to 4sonobuoysNumber of sonobuoys deployedcan varyEffectsConsideredMFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsMFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsExpendedmaterials anddirect strikeVessel movement 3 ships maneuvering Vessel strikeSurface ship MFA ASWsonar (AN/SQS-53 andAN/SQS-56)Helicopter ASW dippingsonar (AN/AQS-13 orAN/AQS-22)Submarine MFA sonar(AN/BQQ-5 or AN/BQQ-10)Acousticcountermeasures(AN/SLQ-25 NIXIE,MK-2, MK-3, or NoiseAcoustic Emitter)Tonal sonobuoy(DICASS)(AN/SSQ-62)Passive sonobuoy(DIFAR) AN/SSQ-53D/E4 ships (CG, DDG, or FFG)pinging approximately 60 hourseach over 10 days1 to 4 helicopters (10 pings perfive-minute dip) during CSGCOMPTUEX2 submarines pinging up to 16times each2 hours per NIXIE20 minutes per MK-2, MK-3, andNoise Acoustic EmitterMPA and/or helicopter dropping 3to 10 sonobuoys for a total of up to218 sonobuoys over duration ofeventNumber of sonobuoys deployedcan varyMFA sonarexposureMFA sonarexposureMFA sonarexposureMFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsMFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsExpendedmaterials anddirect strikeStrike Group Training- ESG COMPTUEX and CSGCOMPTUEX and similar RDT&E3-479 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryEventNameTABLE 3.19-2SUMMARY OF ACTIVE SONAR ACTIVITIES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA AND SEAWARD(Continued)Training EventScenariosFinal fleet exerciseprior to deploymentof the CSG andESG. Serves as aready-to-deploycertification for allunits. Four DDGs,two FFGs, onehelicopter, oneMPA, and threesubmarines.EventsperYear*Length ofOverallEventTypicalEvent AreaDimensions0.2 10 days 60 NM x 80NM up to180 NM x180 NMEquipment or Action Equipment Use or Action perEventexplosive sourcesonobuoy (AN/SSQ-110A)receiver (ADAR)sonobuoy (AN/SSQ-101)2 MPA dropping up to 14 AN/SQ-110A sonobuoysEffectsConsideredExplosivebyproducts,pressure waveexposure,impulsive soundexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsUp to 5 AN/SSQ-101 sonobuoys Direct Strike andexpended materialsVessel movement 6 ships (CG, DDG, FFG, orsubmarine) maneuveringSurface ship MFA ASWsonar (AN/SQS-53 orAN/SQS-56)Helicopter ASW dippingsonar (AN/AQS-13 orAN/AQS-22)Submarine MFA sonar(AN/BQQ-5 or AN/BQQ-10)Acousticcountermeasures(AN/SLQ-25 NIXIE,MK-2, MK-3, or NoiseAcoustic Emitter)Tonal sonobuoy(DICASS)(AN/SSQ-62)6 ships (CG, DDG, FFG) pingingup to 25 hours each1 helicopters dipping for up to onehour (10 pings per five-minutedip)Vessel strikeMFA sonarexposureMFA sonarexposure3 submarines pinging twice each MFA sonarexposure2 hours per NIXIE20 minutes per MK-2, MK-3, andNoise Acoustic Emitter1 MPA and/or 1 helicopterdropping 3 to 10 sonobuoys for atotal of up to 174 sonobuoys overduration of eventMFA sonarexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsMFA sonar , directstrike, andexpended materialsStrike Group training- JTFEXPassive sonobuoy(DIFAR) AN/SSQ-53D/ENumber of sonobuoys deployedcan varyExpendedmaterials anddirect strike3-480 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryEventNameTABLE 3.19-2SUMMARY OF ACTIVE SONAR ACTIVITIES IN THE VACAPES STUDY AREA AND SEAWARD(Continued)Training EventScenariosPier side and at-seamaintenance tosonar system.EventsperYear*Length ofOverallEvent61 0.2 to 4hoursTypicalEvent AreaDimensionsEquipment or Action Equipment Use or Action perEventexplosive sourcesonobuoy (AN/SSQ-110A)receiver (ADAR)sonobuoy (AN/SSQ-101)2 MPA dropping up to 14AN/SSQ-110A sonobuoysEffectsConsideredExplosivebyproducts,pressure waveexposure,impulsive soundexposure, directstrike, andexpended materialsUp to 5 AN/SSQ-101 sonobuoys Direct Strike andexpended materialsVessel movement 9 ships (CG, DDG, FFG, orsubmarine) maneuveringSurface ship MFA ASWsonar (AN/SQS-53 ORAN/SQS-56)Vessel strike1 ship (CG, DDG, or FFG) pinging MFA sonarexposureSurface ShipSonarMaintenancePier side and at-seamaintenance tosonar system.10 1 hour Submarine MFA sonar(AN/BQQ-5 or AN/BQQ-10)1 submarine pinging for up to onehour (60 pings per hour)MFA sonarexposureSubmarine SonarMaintenance* Events per year is an estimate of the average number Atlantic Fleet sonar activities that occur annually within the VACAPES Study Area and seaward of theVACAPES Study Area. Some Coordinated ULT exercises and Strike Group Training are shown as less than one event; this indicates that only a portion of thatevent is expected to occur in the VACAPES Study Area.ADC – Acoustic Device Countermeasure; CG – Guided Missile Cruiser; COMPTUEX – Composite Training Unit Exercise; DDG – Guided Missile Destroyer;DICASS – Directional Command-Activated Sonobuoy System; EMATT – Expendable Mobile Acoustic Training Target; FFG – Fast Frigate; HFA – High-Frequency Active; IEER – Improved Extended Echo Ranging; kHz – Kilohertz; JTFEX – Joint Task Force Exercise; MFA – Mid-Frequency Active; MPA –Maritime Patrol Aircraft; NM – Nautical Mile; TORPEX – Torpedo Exercise.3-481 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryTABLE 3.19-3SUMMARY OF MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIALS DURING SONAR ACTIVITIES IN THEVACAPES STUDY AREANumberDevice Description Expended Materials Expended perSonobuoysMK–46/54LightweightTorpedoesA sonobuoy is an expendable device usedfor detection of underwater acoustic energyand conducting vertical water columntemperature measurements (XBT).Following deployment, sonobuoys descendto specified depths and transmit datameasurements to a surface unit via anelectrical suspension cable or radiofrequency signal. Sonobuoys are cylindricaldevices about 12.5 cm (4.9 in) in diameterand 91 cm (36 in) in length, weighing from6 to 18 kg (14 to 39 lbs). At water impact, aseawater battery activates and deploymentinitiates. The parachute assembly (aircraftonly) is jettisoned and sinks away from theunit, while a float containing an antenna isinflated. The subsurface assembly descendsto a selected depth, and the sonobuoy casefalls away and sea anchors deploy tostabilize the hydrophone (underwatermicrophone). The operating life of theseawater battery is eight hours, after whichthe sonobuoy scuttles itself and sinks to theocean bottom.MK-46 is a deep-diving, high-speedlightweight torpedo that is launched fromhelicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, and surfaceships. It has an OTTO II fuel propulsionsystem and uses active acoustic homing.The MK-54 is launched similar to the MK-46. An exercise torpedo that actually “runs”is referred to as an “EXTORP.” Only about10% of the lightweight shots would be“runners.” All MK-54 shots are “runners.”The remaining shots are non-running“dummy” torpedo shapes called“REXTORPs.” All torpedoes are recovered.A parachute assembly for aircraft-launchedtorpedoes is jettisoned and sinks.Parachute assembly(12-18 inch diameternylon chute) and nyloncordFabric floatation unitLead chloride, cuprousthiocyanate, or silverchloride batteries,Lithium batteries, orLithium iron disulfidethermal batteries (XBTdoes not contain abattery) Plastic casing Metal clips Nylon strap Electrical wiring (90-4—ft of copper wiring,depending on type ofsonobuoy)Drogue (fabric andframe; on somesonobuoys)Hydrophone/transducerassembly(configuration andamount of materialvaries depending ontype of sonobuoy –sonobuoys maycontain up to 38 lbs ofmaterial) Protective nose cover Suspension bands Air stabilizer Release wire Propeller baffle Steel-jacketed leadballast weights- OTTO Fuel II- Parachute (4-9 ft².; onlyon air dropped torpedoes)Year*Listeningsonobuoys:2483Tonalsonobuoys:528Explosivesourcesonobuoys:147Receiversonobuoys: 52Componentsfrom 5torpedoes3-482 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryTABLE 3.19-3SUMMARY OF MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIALS DURING SONAR ACTIVITIES INTHE VACAPES STUDY AREA(Continued)Number ExpendedDevice Description Expended Materialsper Year*MK-48TorpedoAcousticDeviceCountermeasure(ADC)Heavy weight exercise torpedo about 580 cm(19 ft) in length and 53 cm (21 in) indiameter. All torpedoes are recovered.Typically cylinder-shaped about 102 to 280cm (40 to 110 in) in length, 8 to 15 cm (3 to 6in) in diameter, and weighing between 3 and57 kg (7 and 125 lbs).EMATT Approximate shape of 12 by 91 cm (5 by 36in) with a weight of 10 kg (21 lbs)Guidance wire(maximum of 0.1 cm[0.04 in] in diameterand composed of avery fine thin-gaugecopper-cadmiumcore with apolyolefin coating);Up to 15 miles ofwire is deployedduring a runFlex hose (250 ftlong)OTTO Fuel IILithium sulfurdioxide batteryMetal casingWiresParachute assembly(12-18 inch diameternylon chute) andnylon cordLithium sulfurdioxide batteryMetal casingMetal clipsNylon strapElectrical wiringComponentsfrom 6torpedoes34 ADCs87 EMATTs*The quantity shown is an estimate of the portion of overall AFAST expended materials anticipated to be used in the VACAPESRange Complex or seaward of the VACAPES Range Complex.3.19.2.2 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous WasteSummary of Environmental Consequences due to AFASTPotential effects due to both hazardous and non-hazardous constituents of materials (referred to asprimarily Military Expended Materials in the VACAPES EIS/OEIS) expended during sonar activities arediscussed in Section 4.3 of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. The components of materials expended duringsonar activities are provided in Table 3.19-3. Most of these components are non-hazardous and nonreactive,and, therefore, would have no significant effect. The potential effects due to battery constituentsand OTTO Fuel II byproducts were also examined and were found to be minimal.3-483 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryBecause a limited quantity of materials will be expended, and the constituents of the expended materialswill have no or minimal effects, under the AFAST selected alternative, there would be no significantimpact in territorial waters due to hazardous materials. In addition, there would be no significant harm innon-territorial waters due to hazardous materials.Aggregate Environmental ConsequencesThe potential impacts of hazardous materials and hazardous waste (primarily Military ExpendedMaterials) due to range complex activities (other than sonar activities) are presented in Section 3.2 of thisEIS/OEIS. When the potential impacts due to sonar activities are included with the potential impacts dueto range complex activities, there would be less than significant impacts in territorial waters due tohazardous materials. In addition, there would be less than significant harm in non-territorial waters due tohazardous materials.3.19.2.3 Water ResourcesSummary of Environmental Consequences due to AFASTPotential effects due to water quality due to constituents of expended materials and byproducts formedduring sonar activities are discussed in Section 4.3 of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. The following sourceswere examined for potential impacts to water quality:Sonobuoy, ADC, and EMATT battery constituentsExplosion byproducts from explosive-source sonobuoysOtto Fuel II combustion byproductsThe constituents of concern for each of these sources are identified and analyzed in detail in the FinalAFAST EIS/OEIS; overall, negligible impacts were found. Under the AFAST selected alternative,therefore, there would be no significant impacts to water quality in territorial waters. In addition, therewould be no significant harm to water quality in non-territorial waters.Aggregate Environmental ConsequencesThe potential impacts to water quality due to range complex activities (other than sonar activities) arepresented in Section 3.3 of this EIS/OEIS. When the potential impacts due to sonar activities are includedwith the potential impacts due to range complex activities, there would be no significant impact to waterquality in territorial waters. In addition, there would be no significant harm to water quality in nonterritorialwaters.3.19.2.4 Marine CommunitiesSummary of Environmental Consequences due to AFASTThe potential effects to marine invertebrates, including shell fish and corals, are discussed in Section 4.9of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. There is very little information available regarding the hearing capabilityof marine invertebrates. However, no effects to marine invertebrates are anticipated from active sonarsince acoustic transmissions are brief in nature. Any small level of mortality caused by the explosivesource sonobuoy would not be significant to the population as a whole. In addition, the explosions wouldoccur within the water column. Based on the small net explosive weight (NEW) of the explosive, it is notlikely that the pressure wave associated with the detonation would reach the bottom, where the majorityof invertebrates live.The potential effects to marine plants and algae are discussed in Section 4.10 of the Final AFASTEIS/OEIS. No effects to marine plants and algae are anticipated from active sonar because plants andalgae are acoustically transparent. Moreover, ships and submarines would not be operating in the shallow3-484 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summarywaters where sea grasses are present. In addition, Sargassum mats are easily identified and would beavoided wherever possible.Under the AFAST selected alternative, therefore, there would be no significant impacts to marinecommunities in territorial waters. In addition, there would be no significant harm to marine communitiesin non-territorial waters.Aggregate Environmental ConsequencesThe potential impacts to marine communities due to range complex activities (other than sonar activities)are presented in Section 3.6 of this EIS/OEIS. When the potential impacts due to sonar activities areincluded with the potential impacts due to range complex activities, there would be no significant impactto marine communities in territorial waters. In addition, there would be no significant harm to marinecommunities in non-territorial waters.3.19.2.5 Marine MammalsSummary of Environmental Consequences due to AFASTThe Final AFAST EIS/OEIS evaluates potential direct and indirect effects to marine mammals as a resultof exposure to in-water sound and non-acoustic interactions during sonar activities in Section 4.4.Acoustic EffectsAssessing whether a sound may disturb or injure a marine mammal involves understanding thecharacteristics of the acoustic sources, the marine mammals that may be present in the vicinity of thesound, and the effects that sound may have on the physiology and behavior of those marine mammals.The Final AFAST EIS/OEIS analyzed potential effects to marine mammals using the regulatoryframework of the MMPA.Level A harassment: potential injury (biological tissue is damaged or lost as a result of the action)Level B harassment: disruption of natural behavior patterns to the a point where they are abandoned orsignificantly alteredAlthough exposure to sound may cause a variety of physiological effects in mammals, the tissues of theear are most susceptible. Threshold shift (TS), or loss of hearing sensitivity over a subsection of ananimal’s hearing range, therefore, is used as an indicator of physiological effects. TS can be eitherpermanent (PTS) or temporary (TTS), depending on the duration and intensity of the sound exposure.For the purpose of estimating physiological effects to marine mammals due to sound exposure, the Navyand NMFS have concurred on use of the energy flux density level (EL) method, which takes into accountthe total sound energy received. Under this method, harassment is correlated to EL as follows:Marine mammals predicted to receive a sound exposure with EL of 215 dB re 1 μPa 2 -s or greater areassumed to experience PTS and are counted as Level A harassment exposures.Marine mammals predicted to receive a sound exposure with EL greater than or equal to 195 dB re1 μPa 2 -s but less than 215 dB re 1 μPa 2 -s are assumed to experience TTS and are counted as Level Bharassment exposures.In addition to TTS exposures, Level B harassment includes behavioral responses, such as fleeing andinterruption of social or foraging activity. A behavioral response is dependent on many factors, includingthe species, an individual’s characteristics, and the context of the exposure. Because a range ofbehavioral responses may occur to a particular sound exposure, the Navy, in cooperation with NMFS, hasimplemented a risk function approach to estimate the number of behavioral responses that NMFS wouldclassify as behavioral harassment. The risk function is a mathematical function which estimates theprobability of behavioral response based on the maximum sound pressure level (SPL) to which the animal3-485 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summaryis exposed. Figure 3.19-1 is the curve resulting from the risk function inputs for odontocetes (exceptharbor porpoises) and pinnipeds. Figure 3.19-2 is the curve resulting from the risk function inputs formysticetes. Due to information that suggests harbor porpoises exhibit a very low threshold for response,a single exposure threshold of 120 dB SPL is used to estimate behavioral harassment for this species.1Probability of Harassment0.90.80.70.60.50.40.3A = 10K = 45 dB SPLB = 120 dB SPL50% Risk at 165 dB SPL0.20.10120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190Received Level (dB)Figure 3.19-1. Risk Function Curve for Odontocetes (except harbor porpoises) (toothed whales)and Pinnipeds1Probability of Harassment0.90.80.70.60.50.40.3A = 8K = 45 dB SPLB = 120 dB SPL50% Risk at 165 dB SPL0.20.10120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190Received Level (dB)Figure 3.19-2. Risk Function Curve for Mysticetes (Baleen Whales)Although immediate behavioral effects may occur at a receive level above the physiological thresholds,for purposes of this analysis, behavioral responses to sonar are counted as those occurring beyond therange to physiological effects. Figure 3.19-3 depicts the ranges to effects that correspond to MMPAharassment levels.The Final AFAST EIS/OEIS also analyzed the effects to marine mammals due to exposure to smallexplosives during deployment of the AN/SSQ-110A IEER sonobuoy. The Final AFAST EIS/OEIS usedthe same small explosives criteria (for single explosions) presented in Section 3.7.3.1 of this EIS/OEIS.To estimate the number of exposures of marine mammals to sound that would result in regulatory levelsof harassment, sonar activities were acoustically modeled for the VACAPES Study Area. By analyzingboth the acoustic propagation of each source and the estimates of marine mammal presence, annualmarine mammal exposures were calculated (Table 3.19-4). When interpreting the modeling results, it isimportant to recognize the limitations of the model. The model does not reflect implementation of3-486 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summaryprotective measures (such as reducing power levels or ceasing sonar use in the presence of marinemammals) and it assumes that the acoustic footprint extends to the seafloor regardless of the operatingenvironment (in reality the zone of influence for physiological effects is shaped like a bubble in deeperwaters). Sonar power reduction would reduce the likelihood of hearing impairment due to close aboardexposure, but some animals could be missed or could surface within the safety zone. Others couldreceive multiple pings that cause TTS due to added energy of multiple exposures over a short time period.TABLE 3.19-4ESTIMATED ANNUAL TAKES OF MARINE MAMMALSFOR VACAPES RANGE COMPLEXUNDER THE AFAST SELECTED ALTERNATIVESpecies Mortality PTS TTSRisk-Function(Behavioral)Atlantic spotted dolphin 0 10 1287 97900Bottlenose dolphin 0 3 405 32657Clymene dolphin 0 0 51 4299Common dolphin 0 4 850 47499Kogia spp. 0 0 5 408Pantropical spotted dolphin 0 1 108 8998Pilot whales*** 0 1 159 13220Risso’s dolphin 0 1 92 7276Rough-toothed dolphin 0 0 2 194Sperm whale** 0 0* 36 3087Striped dolphin 0 8 839 75409Beaked whale 0 0 8 771Fin whale** 0 0 1 68Humpback whale** 0 0 4 403Minke whale 0 0 0 21North Atlantic right whale** 0 0 1 45* Indicates an exposure greater than or equal to 0.05, therefore, is considered a “may affect” for ESA-listed species.** Denotes species listed in accordance with the Endangered Species Act*** Pilot whales include both short- and long-finned pilot whales along the East CoastIn addition, the exposure estimates rely on the best available information from marine mammal surveys.Marine species density models rely on limited survey data, and for some species data are insufficient toestimate densities (blue whale, white-beaked dolphin, hooded seal, and harp seal throughout the AFASTStudy Area; harbor porpoise, gray seal, harbor seal, sei whale in the VACAPES Study Area).Due to the above reasons, quantitative exposure estimates should be used in conjunction with a qualitativeanalysis to assess potential impacts.Potential acoustic effects to individual marine mammal species, including those for which density data arenot available to quantify potential exposures, are discussed in Sections 4.4.10.3 (ESA-listed species) and4.4.10.4 (non-ESA-listed species) of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. Most exposures would cause shorttermrecoverable behavioral effects, and protective measures, such as sonar power reduction andshutdown as an animal approaches a vessel, would reduce the likelihood of physiological effects.The quantified physiological and behavioral effects above account solely for exposures to levels of soundassociated with the effects thresholds discussed previously. Other potential acoustic effects are also3-487 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summarydiscussed in the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. Currently, evidence of acoustically mediated bubble growthand decompression sickness is limited and inconclusive; therefore, these phenomena are discussed but notconsidered as potential effects. Investigations of air cavity resonance predict it would occur atfrequencies lower than those analyzed in the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. The potential for masking, inwhich sounds interfere with an animal’s ability to hear other sounds, exists; however, due to theintermittent use and narrow-frequency band of sonars, masking effects are considered negligible. Thereader should refer to Section 4.4.10.2.4 of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS for a discussion of what is knownabout the possibility of these phenomena.The reader should refer to the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS for full discussion and explanation of thefollowing topics: Conceptual Biological Framework (Section 4.4.3)- an explanation of the pathways to potentialphysiological and behavioral effects, including stress responses, due to sound exposure. The Regulatory Framework (Section 4.4.4)- an explanation of MMPA Level A and Level Bharassment and the corresponding biological indicators and exposure zones. Criteria and Thresholds for MMPA Harrassment (Section 4.4.5)- an explanation of the developmentof PTS and TTS EL criteria for physiological effects and an explanation of the risk function approachused to estimate behavioral responses to sonar exposure. Criteria and Thresholds for Small Explosives (Section 4.4.6)- an explanation of small explosivescriteria. Acoustic Effects Results for Marine Mammals(Section 4.4.9)- an overview of the acoustic analysisapproach and modeling (for more detail on the modeling and assumptions, refer to Final AFASTEIS/OEIS Appendix H). Summary of Potential Acoustic Effects by Marine Mammal Species (Section 4.4.10)- analysis ofacoustic impacts by individual species.Non-acoustic EffectsThe Final AFAST EIS/OEIS also examined the potential non-acoustic effects to marine mammals duringsonar activities, including interactions with vessels (Section 4.4.12.1) and interactions with othercomponents of sonar activities, such as entanglement in expended materials (Section 4.4.12.2) and directanimal strike by a deployed item, such as torpedoes, sonobuoys, or training targets (Section 4.4.12.3). Asdiscussed in Section 3.7.3.2 of the VACAPES Range Complex EIS/OEIS, the Navy employs protectivemeasures to reduce the likelihood of vessel strikes. The characteristics of materials expended duringsonar activities make them unlikely to be a source of entanglement or ingestion for marine mammals.Due to the large area over which sonar training materials could be deployed from the air, the likelihood ofstriking an animal that may be near the surface is negligible. In addition, there are no known instances inwhich an animal has been struck by an exercise torpedo, as torpedoes are designed to home onmechanical signatures or active sonar returns from vessel hulls.Potential for StrandingsThe history of Navy activities in the AFAST Study Area and analysis in the Final AFAST EIS/OEISindicate that military readiness activities are not expected to result in any sonar – induced mortalities tomarine mammals. Natural and manmade sources of mortality other than sonar and underwaterdetonations that may contribute to stranding events are discussed in the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS (Section3.6.3 and described in detail in Appendix E, Cetacean Stranding Report of the AFAST EIS/OEIS). Theactual cause of a particular stranding may not be immediately apparent when there is little evidence ofphysical trauma, especially in the case of disease or age-related mortalities. These events require carefulscientific investigation by a collaborative team of subject matter experts to determine actual cause ofdeath.3-488 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryEvidence from five beaked whale strandings which have occurred over approximately a decade suggeststhat the exposure of beaked whales to mid-frequency sonar in the presence of certain conditions (e.g.,multiple units using tactical sonar, steep bathymetry, constricted channels, strong surface ducts, etc.) mayresult in strandings, potentially leading to mortality. Although these physical factors believed tocontribute to the likelihood of beaked whale strandings are not present, in their aggregate, in the AFASTStudy Area, scientific uncertainty exists regarding what other factors, or combination of factors, maycontribute to beaked whale strandings.Summary of Effects to Marine MammalsIn conclusion, under the AFAST selected alternative, no significant impacts are predicted to marinemammals in territorial waters due to sonar activities. In addition, there would be no significant harm innon-territorial waters to marine mammals due to sonar activities. The Navy has completed consultationwith NMFS in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA for ESA-listed marine mammals (with the exceptionof manatees) located in the AFAST Study Area. The Navy has completed consultation with NMFS inaccordance with the MMPA for marine mammals located in the AFAST Study Area.Aggregate Environmental ConsequencesThe potential impacts to marine mammals due to range complex activities (other than sonar activities) arepresented in Section 3.7 of this EIS/OEIS. Although it is possible a single animal may be significantlyaffected when considering all events in the training complex, no significant effects are predicted by theanalysis and no significant impacts to populations of marine mammals are anticipated when the potentialimpacts due to sonar activities are included with the potential impacts due to range complex activities.Therefore, there would be no significant impact to marine mammals in territorial waters. In addition,there would be no significant harm to marine mammal populations in non-territorial waters.3.19.2.6 Sea TurtlesSummary of Environmental Consequences due to AFASTThe Final AFAST EIS/OEIS evaluates potential direct and indirect effects to sea turtles as a result ofexposure to in-water sound and non-acoustic interactions during sonar activities in Section 4.5.Acoustic EffectsAssessing whether a sound may disturb or injure a sea turtle involves understanding the characteristics ofthe acoustic sources, the presence of sea turtles in the vicinity of the sound, and the effects that sound mayhave on the physiology and behavior of those animals. Little is known about the role of sound andhearing in sea turtles; however, their greatest sensitivity appears to be at frequencies below thefrequencies used by sonar systems during Atlantic fleet sonar activities. Use of these systems, therefore,is not expected to acoustically affect sea turtles. Sea turtles are, however, expected to be physiologicallyor behaviorally affected by use of explosive source sonobuoys. Effects to sea turtles were analyzed in theFinal AFAST EIS/OEIS using the same method and criteria presented for small explosive impacts (singleexplosions) to sea turtles in the VACAPES Range Complex EIS/OEIS (Section 3.8).Table 3.19-5 shows that no acoustic exposures resulting in a physiological effect are anticipated in theVACAPES Study Area. In the case of single explosions, behavioral effects are expected to be limited toshort-term startle effects.3-489 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryFigure 3.19-3 Summary of the Acoustic Effect Framework Used in This OEIS/EIS(A) General relationships between PTS, TTS, and risk function harassment zones. Image is not scaled, whichallows each zone to be visible. (B) Scaled representation of harassment zone areas. Scaled distances were basedon a single, 1-second ping with source level of 235 dB re 1 µPa.3-490 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST SummaryTABLE 3.19-5ESTIMATED SEA TURTLE ACOUSTIC EXPOSURES FROM EXPLOSIVE SOURCESONOBUOYSSpecies Mortality PTS TTSLoggerhead sea turtle 0 0 1Kemp’s ridley sea turtle 1 0 0 0Leatherback sea turtle 0 0 0Hardshell sea turtles 2 0 0 01. This category does not include Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico. They are included in the hardshell sea turtleclass.2. This category includes green, hawksbill, and unidentified hardshell species for all regions. It also includes Kemp’s ridley seaturtles in the Gulf of Mexico, and may include extralimital occurrences of olive ridley turtles along the Atlantic coast.Non-acoustic EffectsThe Final AFAST EIS/OEIS also examined the potential non-acoustic effects to sea turtles during sonaractivities, including interactions with vessels (Section 4.5.3.1) and interactions with other components ofsonar activities, such as entanglement in expended materials (Section 4.5.3.2) and direct animal strike bya deployed item, such as torpedoes, sonobuoys, or training targets (Section 4.5.3.3). As discussed inSection 3.8.3.1 of the VACAPES Range Complex EIS/OEIS, although the potential for vessel strikeexists, the Navy employs protective measures to reduce the likelihood of vessel strikes. Thecharacteristics of materials expended during sonar activities make them unlikely to be a source ofentanglement or ingestion for sea turtles. Due to the large area over which sonar training materials couldbe deployed from the air, the likelihood of striking an animal that may be near the surface is negligible.In addition, there are no known instances in which an animal has been struck by an exercise torpedo, astorpedoes are designed to home on mechanical signatures or active sonar returns from vessel hulls.Summary of Effects to Sea TurtlesIn conclusion, under the AFAST selected alternative, although there could be potential impacts toindividuals, there would be no significant impact to sea turtles in territorial waters due to sonar activities.In addition, there would be no significant harm in non-territorial waters to sea turtles due to sonaractivities. The Navy has completed consultation with NMFS in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA forESA listed sea turtles due to sonar activities in the AFAST Study Area.Aggregate Environmental ConsequencesThe potential impacts to sea turtles due to range complex activities (other than sonar activities) arepresented in Section 3.8 of this EIS/OEIS. When the potential impacts due to sonar activities are includedwith the potential impacts due to range complex activities, there would be no significant impact to seaturtles in territorial waters. In addition, there will be no significant harm to sea turtles in non-territorialwaters.3.19.2.7 Fish and Essential Fish HabitatSummary of Environmental Consequences due to AFASTEffects to Essential Fish HabitatPotential effects to EFH are analyzed in Section 4.6 of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. The potentialstressors examined were effects of expended materials or byproducts and the effects due to smallexplosive forces. As previously discussed in Bathymetry and Sediments (Section 3.19.2.1), MilitaryExpended Materials (Section 3.19.2.2), and Water Resources (Section 3.19.2.3), under the AFASTselected alternative,, there would be no significant impact to the physical environment due to expended3-491 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summarymaterials and byproducts of sonar activities. Detonation of explosive sonobuoys would occur inrelatively deeper waters where the sea bottom habitat structure would not be affected.Effects to Fish: Sonar ExposurePotential effects to fish due to exposure to active sonar are discussed in Section 4.7.1 of the Final AFASTEIS/OEIS.Studies have indicated that acoustic communication and orientation of fish may be restricted by soundregimes in their environment. However, most marine fish species are not expected to able to detectsounds in the mid-frequency range of the operational sonars used during Atlantic fleet sonar activities,and, therefore, the sound sources do not have the potential to mask key environmental sounds. The fewfish species that have been shown to be able to detect mid-frequencies do not have their best sensitivitiesin the range of the operational sonars. Additionally, vocal marine fish largely communicate below therange of mid-frequency sonars.There is no information available that suggests that exposure to non-impulsive acoustic sources results insignificant fish mortality on a population level. Mortality has been shown to occur in the larval stage ofone species; however, the level of mortality was considered insignificant in light of natural daily mortalityrates. Experiments show that exposure to loud sound can result in significant threshold shifts in certainfish that are classified as hearing specialists (but not those classified as hearing generalists). Thresholdshifts are temporary, and considering the best available data, no data exist that demonstrate any long-termnegative effects on marine fish from underwater sound associated with sonar activities. Further, whilefish may respond behaviorally to mid-frequency sources, this behavioral modification is only expected tobe brief and not biologically significant.Effects to Fish: Exposure to Small Explosives (Explosive Source Sonobuoy)Potential effects to fish due to exposure to detonation of the explosive source sonobuoy are discussed inSection 4.7.2 of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS.Fish that are located in the water column in proximity to the source of detonation could be injured, killed,or disturbed by the impulsive sound of a sonobuoy detonation or possibly temporarily leave the area. Thepotential for injury depends on proximity, fish anatomy (presence of a swim bladder), fish size, fishshape, and orientation of the fish to the explosive source. The huge variations in the fish population,including numbers, species, sizes, and orientation and range from the detonation point, make it verydifficult to accurately predict mortalities at any specific site of detonation.Summary of Effects to EFH and FishSonar activities would not reduce the quality or quantity of EFH, introduce significant contamination tothe water column or bottom habitats, or result in physical disruption of EFH. The likelihood ofsignificant effects to individual fish from active sonar is low. Most fish species experience large numberof natural mortalities especially during early life-stages, and, therefore, any small level of mortalitycaused by sonar activities involving the explosive source sonobuoy would most likely be insignificant tothe population as a whole. Therefore, under the AFAST selected alternative, there would be nosignificant impact to EFH or fish populations as a result of active sonar activities in territorial waters. Inaddition, there would be no significant harm to EFH or fish populations from active sonar activities innon-territorial waters.Aggregate Environmental ConsequencesThe potential impacts to EFH and fish due to range complex activities (other than sonar activities) arepresented in Section 3.9 of this EIS/OEIS. When the potential impacts due to sonar activities are includedwith the potential impacts due to range complex activities, there would be no impact to EFH and fish in3-492 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summaryterritorial waters. In addition, there would be no significant harm to EFH and fish in non-territorialwaters.3.19.2.8 Seabirds and Migratory BirdsSummary of Environmental Consequences due to AFASTPotential effects to seabirds due to exposure to sonar or explosive source sonobuoy detonations arediscussed in Section 4.8 of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. Little is known about the general hearing orunderwater hearing capabilities of sea birds. It was concluded effects were unlikely even if some divingbirds were able to hear a signal for the following reasons:There is no evidence seabirds use underwater sound.Seabirds spend a small fraction of time submerged.Seabirds could rapidly fly away from the area and disperse to other areas if disturbed.Since sonobuoys are only detonated more than 12 NM from shore, only birds traveling far from shorehave the potential to be exposed to a detonation; however; the likelihood of a seabird diving near asonobuoy at the time of detonation is negligible. Therefore, under the AFAST selected alternative, therewould be no significant impact to sea birds as a result of active sonar activities in territorial waters. Inaddition, there would be no significant harm to sea birds from active sonar activities in non-territorialwaters.Aggregate Environmental ConsequencesThe potential impacts to sea birds due to range complex activities (other than sonar activities) arepresented in Section 3.10 of this EIS/OEIS. When the potential impacts due to sonar activities areincluded with the potential impacts due to range complex activities, there will be no significant impact tosea birds in territorial waters. In addition, there would be no significant harm to sea birds in nonterritorialwaters.3.19.2.9 Cultural ResourcesSummary of Environmental Consequences due to AFASTThe potential impacts to cultural resources due to sonar activities are discussed in Section 4.19 of theFinal AFAST EIS/OEIS. Sound in the water is not expected to affect cultural resources, and theexplosions associated with the explosive source sonobuoy would occur within the water column andwould not reach the ocean floor. Although shipwrecks are located in multiple locations throughout theAFAST Study Area, the likelihood of expended materials causing a disturbance is low. Therefore, underthe AFAST selected alternative, there would be no significant impact to cultural resources as a result ofactive sonar activities in territorial waters. In addition, there would be no significant harm to culturalresources from active sonar activities in non-territorial waters.Aggregate Environmental ConsequencesThe potential impacts to cultural resources due to range complex activities (other than sonar activities) arepresented in Section 3.12 of this EIS/OEIS. When the potential impacts due to sonar activities areincluded with the potential impacts due to range complex activities, there would be less than significantimpact to cultural resources in territorial waters. In addition, there would be less than significant harm tocultural resources in non-territorial waters.3-493 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summary3.19.2.10 TransportationSummary of Environmental Consequences due to AFASTThe potential impacts to airspace management are discussed in Section 4.12 of the Final AFASTEIS/OEIS. Because no new or modified activities are proposed within the airspace of the AFAST StudyArea, there would be no effects to airspace management due to sonar activities.The potential impacts to commercial shipping are discussed in Section 4.16 of the Final AFASTEIS/OEIS. No significant effects to commercial shipping have been reported in the past due to sonaractivities.Therefore, under the AFAST selected alternative, there would be no significant impact to transportationas a result of active sonar activities in territorial waters. In addition, there would be no significant harm totransportation from active sonar activities in non-territorial waters.Aggregate Environmental ConsequencesThe potential impacts to transportation due to range complex activities (other than sonar activities) arepresented in Section 3.13 of this EIS/OEIS. When the potential impacts due to sonar activities areincluded with the potential impacts due to range complex activities, there would be no significant impactto transportation in territorial waters. In addition, there would be no significant harm to transportation innon-territorial waters.3.19.2.11 Regional EconomySummary of Environmental Consequences due to AFASTThe potential impacts to commercial fishing are discussed in Section 4.15 of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS.The Navy does not routinely close areas for active sonar activities. In addition, the largest portioncommercial fishing occurs in state waters, where active sonar activities would not occur, with theexception of limited maintenance and navigational use. Furthermore, no significant impacts to fish areanticipated due to sonar activities. Therefore, under the AFAST selected alternative, no significantimpact to commercial fishing is anticipated due to sonar activities.Aggregate Environmental ConsequencesThe potential impacts to regional economy due to range complex activities (other than sonar activities)are presented in Section 3.15 of this EIS/OEIS. When the potential impacts due to sonar activities areincluded with the potential impacts due to range complex activities, there would be no significant impactto the regional economy in territorial waters. In addition, there would be no significant harm to theregional economy in non-territorial waters.3.19.2.12 RecreationSummary of Environmental Consequences due to AFASTThe potential effects to recreational boating are discussed in Section 4.14 of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS.The potential effects to recreational fishing are discussed in Section 4.15 of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS.The Navy does not routinely close areas for active sonar activities; therefore, under the AFAST selectedalternative, there would be no significant impacts to recreational boating or fishing due to sonar activities.Furthermore, as previously discussed, no potential impacts to fish are anticipated due to active sonaractivities.The potential effects to scuba diving are discussed in Section 4.17 of the Final AFAST EIS/OEIS. Underthe AFAST selected alternative, no significant impacts to diving are anticipated due to sonar activities.The potential effects to marine mammal watching are discussed in Section 4.18 of the Final AFASTEIS/OEIS. Because these activities typically occur near-shore, and the Navy does not routinely close3-494 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summaryareas for sonar activities, under the AFAST selected alternative, there would be no significant impact tomarine mammal watching due to sonar activities.Aggregate Environmental ConsequencesThe potential impacts to recreation due to range complex activities (other than sonar activities) arepresented in Section 3.16 of this EIS/OEIS. When the potential impacts due to sonar activities areincluded with the potential impacts due to range complex activities, there would be no significant impactto recreation in territorial waters. In addition, there would be no significant harm to recreation in nonterritorialwaters.3.19.3 Mitigation Measures for Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar ActivitiesThe AFAST FEIS/OEIS and Record of Decision (ROD) provides a detailed discussion of mitigationmeasures employed during sonar activities, specifically during: active sonar activities (AFAST EIS/OEISSection 5.1), use of explosive source sonobuoys (AFAST EIS/OEIS Section 5.2), and vessel transit(AFAST EIS/OEIS Section 5.3). In addition, the AFAST FEIS/OEIS and ROD presents a discussion ofother measures that have been considered and rejected after consideration of: known science; likelyeffectiveness; personnel safety; practicality of implementation; and impact on the effectiveness of themilitary readiness activity. All mitigation measures incorporated into this FEIS/OEIS, including thosefrom AFAST, are discussed in chapter 5. Specifically, AFAST mitigations related to active sonar and theuse of explosive source sonobouys are presented below.3.19.3.1 AFAST Mitigation Measures Related to Acoustic EffectsAs discussed in the NMFS MMPA regulations for AFAST active sonar activities, ESA Biological Opinion,and the AFAST ROD, the Navy would implement various mitigation measures to maximize the ability ofoperators to recognize instances when marine mammals are in the vicinity. These measures include thefollowing:1. Training personnel in lookout/watchstander duties;2. Stationing at least three people on watch with binoculars at all times;3. Stationing at least two additional people on watch during ASW exercises when MFA sonar isbeing used;4. Requiring all personnel engaged in passive acoustic sonar operation to monitor for marinemammal vocalizations;5. Using all available sensor and optical systems, such as night vision goggles during MFA andHFA active sonar activities;6. Using only passive capability of sonobuoys when marine mammals are detected within 183meters (200 yards);7. Limiting ship or submarine active transmission levels to at least 6 dB below normal operatinglevels when marine mammals are detected by any means within 914 meters (1,000 yards) of thesonar dome (the bow);8. Limiting ship or submarine active transmission levels to at least 10 dB below normal operatinglevels when marine mammals are detected by any means within 457 meters (500 yards) of thesonar dome, or ceasing ship or submarine active transmissions when a marine mammal isdetected by any means within 183 meters (200 yards) of the sonar dome;9. If the need for such power-down arises, following power-down requirements as though thesystem is operating at 235 dB, the normal operating level (i.e., power-down would be to 229 dB);3-495 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summary10. Operating sonar at the lowest practicable level, not to exceed 235 dB, except as required to meettactical training objectives;11. Requiring helicopters to observe or survey the vicinity of an ASW activity for ten minutes beforefirst deployment of active (dipping) sonar in the water; prohibiting dipping sonar within 183meters (200 yd) of a marine mammal and ceasing pinging if a marine mammal closes to within183 meters (200 yd) after pinging has begun;12. Coordinating with the local NMFS Stranding Coordinator; and submitting a report containing adiscussion of the nature of any observed effects based on both modeled results of real-time eventsand sightings of marine mammals.Special Conditions Applicable for Bow-Riding DolphinsIf, after conducting an initial maneuver to avoid close quarters with dolphins, the ship concludes thatdolphins are deliberately closing in on the ship to ride the vessel’s bow wave, no further mitigationactions would be necessary because dolphins are out of the main transmission axis of the active sonarwhile in the shallow-wave area of the vessel bow.The Navy and NMFS worked together to identify additional practicable and effective mitigation measuresto address the following three issues of concern:(1) general minimization of marine mammal impacts;(2) minimization of impacts within the southeastern North Atlantic right whales critical habitat; and(3) the potential relationship between the operation of mid and/or high-frequency active sonar andmarine mammal strandings.Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonablelikelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one ormore of the following general goals:avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible;a reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important timeor location) exposed to received levels of mid- or high-frequency active sonar, underwater detonations,or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to thefirst goal above, or by reducing harassment takes only);a reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location)individuals would be exposed to received levels of mid- or high-frequency active sonar, underwaterdetonations, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal maycontribute to the first goal listed above or by reducing harassment takes only);a reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important timeor location) to received levels of MFA or HFA sonar, underwater detonations, or other activitiesexpected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to (1), above, or toreducing the severity of harassment takes only);a reduction in adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base,activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction ofhabitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time;and for monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in the probability of detecting marinemammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation (shut-down zone, etc.).NMFS and the Navy had extensive discussions regarding mitigation as part of consultation on theproposed and final rules, in which several mitigation options and their respective practicability were3-496 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summaryexplored. Ultimately, NMFS and the Navy developed the following measures which the Navy andNMFS believe supports (or contributes) to the goals mentioned above:Planning Awareness Areas (PAAs): The Navy has designated several Planning Awareness Areas(PAAs) based on areas of high productivity that have been correlated with high concentrations of marinemammals (such as persistent oceanographic features like upwellings associated with the Gulf Streamfront where it is deflected off the east coast near the Outer Banks), and areas of steep bathymetriccontours that are frequented by deep diving marine mammals such as beaked whales and sperm whales.In developing the PAAs, USFF was able to consider these factors because of geographic flexibility inconducting ASW training. USFF is not tied to a specific range support structure for the majority of thetraining for AFAST.Additionally, the topography and bathymetry along the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico is unique inthat there is a wide continental shelf leading to the shelf break, affording a wider range of trainingopportunities. The Navy will avoid planning major exercises in the specified PAAs where feasible.Should national security require the conduct of more than four major exercises (COMPTUEX, JTFEX,SEASWITI, or similar scale event) in these areas (meaning all or a portion of the exercise) per year, theNavy will provide NMFS with prior notification and include the information in any associated afteractionor monitoring reports. To the extent operationally feasible, the Navy plans to conduct no more thanone of the four major exercises (COMPTUEX, JTFEX, SEASWITI, or similar scale event) per year in theGulf of Mexico. Based on operational requirements, the exercise area for this one exercise may includethe De Soto Canyon. If national security needs require more than one major exercise to be conducted inthe PAAs, which includes portions of the DeSoto Canyon, the Navy would provide NMFS with priornotification and include the information in any associated after-action or monitoring reports. The PAAswill be included in the Navy's Protective Measures Assessment Protocol (PMAP) (implemented by theNavy for use in the protection of the marine environment) for unit level situational awareness (i.e.,exercises other than COMPTUEX, JTFEX, or SEASWITI). The goal of PMAP is to raise awareness inthe fleet and ensure common sense and informed oversight is injected into planning processes for testingand training evolutions.Helicopter Dipping Sonar in North Atlantic right whale Critical Habitat: Helicopter Dipping Sonaris one of the two activity types that have been identified as planned to occur in the southern NorthAtlantic right whale critical habitat. Historically, only maintenance of helicopter dipping sonars occurswithin a portion of the North Atlantic right whale critical habitat. Tactical training with helicopter dippingsonar does not typically occur in the North Atlantic right whale critical habitat area at any time of theyear. The critical habitat area is used on occasion for post maintenance operational checks and equipmenttesting due to its proximity to shore. Unless otherwise dictated by national security needs, the Navy willminimize helicopter dipping sonar maintenance within the southeast North Atlantic right whale criticalhabitat from November 15 to April 15.Object Detection Exercises in North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat: Object detection trainingrequirements are another type of activity that has been identified as planned to occur in the southernNorth Atlantic right whale critical habitat. The Navy recognizes the significance of the North Atlanticright whale calving area and has explored ways of affecting the least practicable impact (which includes aconsideration of practicality of implementation and impacts to training fidelity) to right whales. Navyunits will incorporate data from the Early Warning System (EWS) into exercise pre-planning efforts.USFF contributes more than $150,000 annually for aerial surveys that support the EWS, a communicationnetwork that assists afloat commands to avoid interactions with right whales. Fleet Air ControlSurveillance Facility (FACSFAC) JAX houses the Whale Fusion Center, which disseminates the latestright whale sighting information to Navy ships, submarines, and aircraft. Through the Fusion Center,FACSFAC JAX coordinates ship and aircraft movement into the right whale critical habitat and the3-497 March 2009

VACAPES Range Complex FEIS/OEISChapter 3 – Affected Environment andEnvironmental Consequences3.19 AFAST Summarysurrounding operating areas based on season, water temperature, weather conditions, and frequency ofwhale sightings and provides right whale reports to ships, submarines and aircraft, including coast guardvessels and civilian shipping. The Navy proposes: To reduce the time spent conducting object detection exercises in the North Atlantic right whalecritical habitat during the time of November 15 to April 15; and Prior to conducting surface ship object detection exercises in the southeast North Atlantic right whalecritical habitat during the time of November 15 to April 15, ships will contact the FACSFAC JAX toobtain the latest right whale sighting information. FACSFAC JAX will advise ships of all reportedwhale sightings in the vicinity of the critical habitat and Associated Area of Concern. To the extentoperationally feasible, ships will avoid conducting training in the vicinity of recently sighted rightwhales. Ships will maneuver to maintain at least 457 meters (500 yards) separation from any observedwhale, consistent with the safety of the ship.3.19.3.2 Mitigation Measures Related to Explosive Source Sonobuoys (AN/SSQ-110A)As discussed in the NMFS MMPA regulations for AFAST active sonar activities, ESA BiologicalOpinion, and the AFAST Record of Decision dated 23 Jan 2009, the Navy would implement thefollowing mitigation measures for explosive source sonobuoys (AN/SSQ-110A) as well as for the followon Advanced Extended Echo Ranging (AEER) system:1. Crews will conduct visual reconnaissance of the drop area prior to laying their intended sonobuoypattern;2. Crews will conduct a minimum of 30 minutes of visual and aural monitoring of the search areaprior to commanding the first post (source/receiver sonobuoy pair) detonation;3. If a post (source/receiver sonobuoy pair) will be deployed within 914 meters (1,000 yards) ofobserved marine mammal activity, crews will deploy the receiver only and monitor whileconducting a visual search;4. When operationally feasible, crews will conduct continuous visual and aural monitoring ofmarine mammal activity, including monitoring of their aircraft sensors from first sensorplacement to checking off-station and of radio frequency range of these sensors; aural detectionof marine mammal cues the aircrew to increase the diligence of their visual surveillance;5. If marine mammals are visually detected within 914 meter (1,000 yards) of the explosive sourcesonobuoy (AN/SSQ-110A) intended for use, then that payload shall not be detonated;6. Aircrews will ensure a 914-meter (1,000-yard) safety zone, visually clear of marine mammals, ismaintained;7. Aircrews shall only leave posts with unexploded charges in the event of a sonobuoy malfunction,an aircraft system malfunction, or when an aircraft must immediately depart the area due to issuessuch as fuel constraints, inclement weather, and in-flight emergencies;8. Aircrews will ensure all payloads are accounted for;9. Marine mammal monitoring shall continue until out of their aircraft sensor range.3-498 March 2009

Virginia Capes Range Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?