August 2013 - Hawaii-Southern California

HAWAII­SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT AUGUST 2013 Lead Agency Department of the Navy Action Proponents Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Naval Sea Systems Command Naval Air Systems Command Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Office of Naval Research For Additional Information: HSTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific/EV21.CS 258 Makalapa Dr. Ste. 100 Pearl Harbor, HI 96860‐3134 Phone: 808‐472‐1420
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
HAWAII­SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 258 Makalapa Dr. Ste. 100 Pearl Harbor, HI 96860‐3134 August 2013 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
HAWAII­SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT AUGUST 2013 Lead Agency: United States Department of the Navy Action Proponents: Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Naval Sea Systems Command Naval Air Systems Command Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Office of Naval Research Point of Contact: HSTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific/EV21.CS 258 Makalapa Dr. Ste. 100 Pearl Harbor, HI 96860‐3134 (808) 472‐1420 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1­1 1.1 2 Previous Essential Fish Habitat Assessments ....................................................................................... 1‐1 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................................... 2­1 2.1 Description of the Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Study Area ................................... 2‐2 2.1.1 Hawaii Range Complex ............................................................................................................................. 2‐3 2.1.1.1 Special Use Airspace ........................................................................................................................ 2‐4 2.1.1.2 Sea and Undersea Space ................................................................................................................. 2‐4 2.1.2 Southern California Range Complex ...................................................................................................... 2‐10 2.1.2.1 Special Use Airspace ...................................................................................................................... 2‐10 2.1.2.2 Sea and Undersea Space ............................................................................................................... 2‐10 2.1.3 Silver Strand Training Complex .............................................................................................................. 2‐15 2.1.4 Ocean Operating Areas Outside the Bounds of Existing Range Complexes (Transit Corridor) .............. 2‐15 2.1.5 Pierside Locations and San Diego Bay .................................................................................................... 2‐17 2.2 Primary Mission Areas ....................................................................................................................... 2‐18 2.2.1 Anti‐Air Warfare ..................................................................................................................................... 2‐18 2.2.2 Amphibious Warfare .............................................................................................................................. 2‐18 2.2.3 Strike Warfare ........................................................................................................................................ 2‐19 2.2.4 Anti‐Surface Warfare ............................................................................................................................. 2‐19 2.2.5 Anti‐Submarine Warfare ........................................................................................................................ 2‐20 2.2.6 Electronic Warfare ................................................................................................................................. 2‐20 2.2.7 Mine Warfare ......................................................................................................................................... 2‐21 2.2.8 Naval Special Warfare ............................................................................................................................ 2‐22 2.3 Descriptions of Sonar, Ordnance/Munitions, Targets, and Other Systems Employed in Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Events ................................................................................................ 2‐22 2.3.1 Sonar and Other Acoustic Sources ......................................................................................................... 2‐22 2.3.1.1 What is Sonar? ............................................................................................................................... 2‐22 2.3.1.2 Sonar Systems ............................................................................................................................... 2‐24 2.3.2 Ordnance/Munitions .............................................................................................................................. 2‐28 2.3.3 Targets .................................................................................................................................................... 2‐33 2.3.4 Defensive Countermeasures .................................................................................................................. 2‐35 2.3.5 Mine Warfare Systems ........................................................................................................................... 2‐35 2.3.6 Military Expended Materials .................................................................................................................. 2‐37 2.3.7 Classification of Acoustic and Explosive Sources ................................................................................... 2‐39 2.4 Proposed Activities ............................................................................................................................ 2‐42 2.4.1 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Proposed Training Activities ..................................... 2‐42 2.4.2 Proposed Testing Activities .................................................................................................................... 2‐48 2.4.2.1 Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities ............................................................................ 2‐48 2.4.2.2 Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Events ............................................................................... 2‐51 2.4.2.3 Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Testing Events ...................................................... 2‐54 2.4.2.4 Office of Naval Research and Naval Research Laboratory Testing Events .................................... 2‐56 2.5 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................................ 2‐56 i Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 3 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ...................................................................................................... 3­1 3.1 Pacific Fishery Management Council ................................................................................................... 3‐2 3.1.1 Pacific Coast Groundfish .......................................................................................................................... 3‐2 3.1.1.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat .................................................................. 3‐2 3.1.1.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Designations .......................................................................... 3‐4 3.1.2 Coastal Pelagic Species ........................................................................................................................... 3‐10 3.1.2.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................ 3‐10 3.1.2.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Designations ........................................................................ 3‐12 3.1.3 Highly Migratory Species ........................................................................................................................ 3‐12 3.1.3.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................ 3‐12 3.1.3.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Designations ........................................................................ 3‐13 3.2 Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council ...................................................................... 3‐13 3.2.1 Bottomfish Management Unit ............................................................................................................... 3‐15 3.2.1.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................ 3‐15 3.2.1.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern .............................................................................................. 3‐18 3.2.2 Crustaceans Management Unit .............................................................................................................. 3‐19 3.2.2.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................ 3‐19 3.2.2.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern .............................................................................................. 3‐20 3.2.3 Precious Corals Management Unit ......................................................................................................... 3‐20 3.2.3.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................ 3‐20 3.2.3.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern .............................................................................................. 3‐23 3.2.4 Coral Reef Ecosystems Management Unit ............................................................................................. 3‐23 3.2.4.1 Coral Reef Ecosystems Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa Management Unit ......................... 3‐24 3.2.4.2 Coral Reef Ecosystems Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa Management Unit ....................... 3‐24 3.2.4.3 Pelagic Management Unit ............................................................................................................. 3‐25 3.3 Description of Habitats ...................................................................................................................... 3‐28 3.3.1 Water Column ........................................................................................................................................ 3‐29 3.3.1.1 Currents, Circulation Patterns, and Water Masses ....................................................................... 3‐29 3.3.1.2 Water Column Characteristics and Processes ............................................................................... 3‐35 3.3.1.3 Bathymetry .................................................................................................................................... 3‐36 3.3.1.4 Water Column Essential Fish Habitat ............................................................................................ 3‐41 3.3.2 Substrates .............................................................................................................................................. 3‐41 3.3.2.1 Soft Shores .................................................................................................................................... 3‐41 3.3.2.2 Hard Shores ................................................................................................................................... 3‐44 3.3.2.3 Soft Bottoms .................................................................................................................................. 3‐44 3.3.2.4 Hard Bottoms ................................................................................................................................ 3‐45 3.3.2.5 Artificial Structures ........................................................................................................................ 3‐51 3.3.3 Biogenic Habitats ................................................................................................................................... 3‐55 3.3.3.1 Vegetated Shores .......................................................................................................................... 3‐55 3.3.3.2 Submerged Rooted Vegetation Beds ............................................................................................ 3‐56 3.3.3.3 Attached Macroalgae Beds............................................................................................................ 3‐56 3.3.3.4 Coral Reefs and Communities ....................................................................................................... 3‐57 4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ...................................................................................................... 4­1 4.1 Potential Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1.1 Acoustic Stressors .................................................................................................................................... 4‐3 4.1.1.1 Non‐Impulsive Stressors .................................................................................................................. 4‐7 4.1.1.2 Impulsive Stressors ........................................................................................................................ 4‐15 ii Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 4.1.2 Energy Stressors ..................................................................................................................................... 4‐28 4.1.2.1 Electromagnetic Devices ............................................................................................................... 4‐29 4.1.3 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors .............................................................................................. 4‐32 4.1.3.1 Vessels ........................................................................................................................................... 4‐32 4.1.3.2 Pile Driving ..................................................................................................................................... 4‐33 4.1.3.3 In‐Water Devices ........................................................................................................................... 4‐34 4.1.3.4 Military Expended Materials ......................................................................................................... 4‐36 4.1.3.5 Seafloor Devices ............................................................................................................................ 4‐45 4.1.4 Contaminant Stressors ........................................................................................................................... 4‐47 4.1.4.1 Explosives and Explosive Byproducts ............................................................................................ 4‐47 4.1.4.2 Metals ............................................................................................................................................ 4‐49 4.1.4.3 Chemicals ...................................................................................................................................... 4‐49 4.1.4.4 Other Materials ............................................................................................................................. 4‐51 4.1.5 Study Area Combined Impact of Navy Stressors .................................................................................... 4‐52 5 MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................................................... 5­1 5.1 Standard Operating Procedures .......................................................................................................... 5‐1 5.2 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................... 5‐1 6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 6­1 7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 7­1 APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................................................... A­1 APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................................... B­1 iii Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2‐1: HAWAII‐SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING STUDY AREA .................................................................... 2‐5 FIGURE 2‐2: HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX ............................................................................................................................... 2‐6 FIGURE 2‐3: NAVY TRAINING AREAS AROUND KAUAI ............................................................................................................ 2‐7 FIGURE 2‐4: OAHU TRAINING LOCATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 2‐8 FIGURE 2‐5: MAUI TRAINING LOCATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 2‐9 FIGURE 2‐6: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RANGE COMPLEX ........................................................................................................ 2‐11 FIGURE 2‐7: SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND OFFSHORE TRAINING AREAS.......................................................................................... 2‐12 FIGURE 2‐8: SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND NEARSHORE TRAINING AREAS ....................................................................................... 2‐13 FIGURE 2‐9: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AREAS ........................................................................................................ 2‐14 FIGURE 2‐10: SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX ............................................................................................................. 2‐16 FIGURE 2‐11: NAVY PIERS AND SHIPYARDS IN SAN DIEGO AND PEARL HARBOR ....................................................................... 2‐17 FIGURE 2‐12: PRINCIPLE OF ACTIVE SONAR ....................................................................................................................... 2‐23 FIGURE 2‐13: GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYER WITH AN/SQS‐53 SONAR .................................................................................. 2‐24 FIGURE 2‐14: SUBMARINE AN/BQQ‐10 ACTIVE SONAR ARRAY ........................................................................................... 2‐25 FIGURE 2‐15: SONOBUOYS (E.G., AN/SSQ‐62) ................................................................................................................ 2‐25 FIGURE 2‐16: HELICOPTER DEPLOYS DIPPING SONAR .......................................................................................................... 2‐26 FIGURE 2‐17: NAVY TORPEDOES ..................................................................................................................................... 2‐26 FIGURE 2‐18: ACOUSTIC COUNTERMEASURES ................................................................................................................... 2‐27 FIGURE 2‐19: ANTI‐SUBMARINE WARFARE TRAINING TARGETS ............................................................................................ 2‐27 FIGURE 2‐20: MINE WARFARE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 2‐28 FIGURE 2‐21: SHIPBOARD SMALL ARMS TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 2‐29 FIGURE 2‐22: SHIPBOARD MEDIUM‐CALIBER PROJECTILES ................................................................................................... 2‐30 FIGURE 2‐23: LARGE‐CALIBER PROJECTILE USE (5‐INCH) ..................................................................................................... 2‐30 FIGURE 2‐24: ROLLING AIRFRAME MISSILE (LEFT), AIR‐TO‐AIR MISSILE (RIGHT) ...................................................................... 2‐31 FIGURE 2‐25: ANTI‐SURFACE MISSILE FIRED FROM MH‐60 HELICOPTER ............................................................................... 2‐31 FIGURE 2‐26: F/A‐18 BOMB RELEASE (LEFT) AND LOADING GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS (RIGHT) ............................................... 2‐32 FIGURE 2‐27: SUBSCALE BOMBS FOR TRAINING ................................................................................................................. 2‐32 FIGURE 2‐28: ANTI‐AIR WARFARE TARGETS ..................................................................................................................... 2‐33 FIGURE 2‐29: DEPLOYING A “KILLER TOMATOTM” FLOATING TARGET .................................................................................... 2‐34 FIGURE 2‐30: SHIP DEPLOYABLE SURFACE TARGET (LEFT) AND HIGH‐SPEED MANEUVERABLE SEABORNE TARGET (RIGHT) .............. 2‐34 FIGURE 2‐31: TOWED MINE DETECTION SYSTEM ............................................................................................................... 2‐36 FIGURE 2‐32: AIRBORNE LASER MINE DETECTION SYSTEM IN OPERATION .............................................................................. 2‐36 FIGURE 2‐33: ORGANIC AND SURFACE INFLUENCE SWEEP .................................................................................................... 2‐37 FIGURE 2‐34: AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 2‐38 FIGURE 3‐1: FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL REGIONS ....................................................................................................... 3‐3 FIGURE 3‐2: PACIFIC GROUNDFISH ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT .................................................................................................. 3‐5 FIGURE 3‐3: PACIFIC GROUNDFISH HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN........................................................................... 3‐7 FIGURE 3‐4: AREAS OF INTEREST CLOSED TO FISHING TO PROTECT PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH HABITAT – SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ... 3‐9 FIGURE 3‐5: DESIGNATED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR COASTAL PELAGIC SPECIES .................................................................. 3‐11 FIGURE 3‐6: WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL GEOGRAPHIC AREA ................................................ 3‐14 FIGURE 3‐7: PRECIOUS CORAL FISHERIES FISHING AREAS OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS OPAREA .................................................. 3‐21 FIGURE 3‐8: THREE‐DIMENSIONAL REPRESENTATION OF A CONTINENTAL MARGIN AND ABYSSAL ZONE ........................................ 3‐30 FIGURE 3‐9: OPEN OCEAN PORTIONS OF THE HAWAII‐SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING STUDY AREA ...................... 3‐32 FIGURE 3‐10: CALIFORNIA CURRENT AND COUNTERCURRENT CIRCULATION IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT .......................... 3‐33 FIGURE 3‐11: SURFACE CIRCULATION IN THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS .......................................................................................... 3‐34 FIGURE 3‐12: BATHYMETRY OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RANGE COMPLEX ......................................................................... 3‐39 FIGURE 3‐13: BATHYMETRY OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS ...................................................................................................... 3‐40 FIGURE 3‐14: BOTTOM SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RANGE COMPLEX .......................................... 3‐43 FIGURE 3‐15: BOTTOM SUBSTRATE COMPOSITION OF SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX ........................................................ 3‐46 FIGURE 3‐16: OFFSHORE HABITATS OF ISLAND OF OAHU ..................................................................................................... 3‐47 iv Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment FIGURE 3‐17: OFFSHORE HABITATS OF ISLAND OF KAUAI AND NIIHAU ................................................................................... 3‐48 FIGURE 3‐18: OFFSHORE HABITATS OF ISLAND OF MAUI, MOLOKAI, AND LANAI ...................................................................... 3‐49 FIGURE 3‐19: OFFSHORE HABITATS OF ISLAND OF HAWAII ................................................................................................... 3‐50 FIGURE 3‐20: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ARTIFICIAL REEFS ...................................................................................................... 3‐52 FIGURE 3‐21: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SHIPWRECKS ............................................................................................................ 3‐53 FIGURE 3‐22: HAWAII SHIPWRECKS ................................................................................................................................. 3‐54 FIGURE 4‐1: ESTIMATE OF SPREADING LOSS FOR A 235 DB RE 1 µPA SOUND SOURCE ASSUMING SIMPLE SPHERICAL SPREADING LOSS ...... ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4‐10 FIGURE 4‐2: PREDICTION OF DISTANCE TO 10 PERCENT MORTALITY OF MARINE INVERTEBRATES ................................................ 4‐18 FIGURE 4‐3: A MK‐58 SMOKE FLOAT OBSERVED IN AN AREA DOMINATED BY CORAL RUBBLE ON THE CONTINENTAL SLOPE ............ 4‐38 FIGURE 4‐4: AN UNIDENTIFIED, NON‐MILITARY STRUCTURE OBSERVED ON THE RIDGE SYSTEM RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE CONTINENTAL SHELF BREAK ...................................................................................................................................................... 4‐39 FIGURE 4‐5: (LEFT) A 76‐MM CARTRIDGE CASING ON SOFT BOTTOM. (RIGHT) A BLACKBELLY ROSEFISH (HELICOLENUS DACTYLOPTERUS) USING THE CASING FOR SHELTER WHEN DISTURBED ..................................................................................................... 4‐39 v Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2‐1: NON‐IMPULSIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED ...................................................................................... 2‐40 TABLE 2‐2: EXPLOSIVE SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED ............................................................................................................ 2‐42 TABLE 2‐3: STUDY AREA TYPICAL TRAINING ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................... 2‐43 TABLE 2‐4: STUDY AREA TYPICAL NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ............................................................. 2‐49 TABLE 2‐5: STUDY AREA TYPICAL NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ............................................................ 2‐52 TABLE 2‐6: STUDY AREA TYPICAL SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES .................................... 2‐55 TABLE 2‐7: STUDY AREA TYPICAL OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH TESTING ACTIVITY .................................................................... 2‐56 TABLE 2‐8: PROPOSED TRAINING ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................................... 2‐57 TABLE 2‐9: PROPOSED NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES........................................................................... 2‐67 TABLE 2‐10: PROPOSED NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 2‐69 TABLE 2‐11: PROPOSED SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES ................................................ 2‐73 TABLE 2‐12: PROPOSED OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH TESTING ACTIVITIES .............................................................................. 2‐73 TABLE 3‐1: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN DESIGNATED BY PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL .............................................................................................................................................................. 3‐4 TABLE 3‐2: HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES MANAGEMENT UNIT ............................................................................................. 3‐13 TABLE 3‐3: EFH AND HAPC DESIGNATIONS FOR HAWAII ARCHIPELAGO FEP MANAGEMENT UNIT ............................................. 3‐16 TABLE 3‐4: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABITAT AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN DESIGNATED BY WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ....................................................................................................................................... 3‐27 TABLE 3‐5: SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE RANGE OF THE STUDY AREA .................................................................................... 3‐35 TABLE 3‐6: SUMMARY OF BATHYMETRIC FEATURES WITHIN IMPORTANT NAVY TRAINING AND TESTING AREAS .............................. 3‐37 TABLE 3‐7: WATER COLUMN EFH AND HAPC REFERENCES WITHIN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL AREAS OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA ... ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3‐41 TABLE 3‐8: SUBSTRATE EFH AND HAPC REFERENCES WITHIN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL AREAS OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA. .. 3‐42 TABLE 4‐1: LIST OF STRESSORS ANALYZED ........................................................................................................................... 4‐2 TABLE 4‐2: STRESSORS BY WARFARE AND TESTING AREA ....................................................................................................... 4‐3 TABLE 4‐3: SONAR AND OTHER ACTIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION (ANNUAL HOURS) .......................... 4‐8 TABLE 4‐4: REPRESENTATIVE ORDNANCE, NET EXPLOSIVE WEIGHTS, AND DETONATION DEPTHS ................................................ 4‐16 TABLE 4‐5: ESTIMATED EXPLOSIVE EFFECTS RANGES FOR FISH WITH SWIM BLADDERS ............................................................... 4‐17 TABLE 4‐6: TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES THAT INCLUDE SEAFLOOR EXPLOSIONS .............................................................. 4‐19 TABLE 4‐7: BOTTOM DETONATIONS FOR TRAINING ACTIVITIES UNDER PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................... 4‐21 TABLE 4‐8: EXPLOSIONS IN THE WATER COLUMN FROM TRAINING ACTIVITIES (EXCLUDING EXPLOSION ON OR NEAR THE BOTTOM), AND THEIR IMPACT ON WATER COLUMN ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ....................................................................................... 4‐22 TABLE 4‐9: EXPLOSIONS IN THE WATER COLUMN FROM TESTING ACTIVITIES (EXCLUDING EXPLOSION ON OR NEAR THE BOTTOM), AND THEIR IMPACT ON WATER COLUMN ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ....................................................................................... 4‐23 TABLE 4‐10: EFFECTS RANGE FOR FISH FROM PILE DRIVING ................................................................................................. 4‐25 TABLE 4‐11: REPRESENTATIVE WEAPONS NOISE CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................................... 4‐27 TABLE 4‐12: NUMBER AND LOCATION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY EVENTS ........................................................................ 4‐29 TABLE 4‐13: REPRESENTATIVE VESSEL TYPES, LENGTHS, AND SPEEDS ..................................................................................... 4‐32 TABLE 4‐14: REPRESENTATIVE TYPES, SIZES, AND SPEEDS OF IN‐WATER DEVICES ..................................................................... 4‐35 TABLE 4‐15: NUMBER AND LOCATION OF EVENTS INCLUDING IN‐WATER DEVICES ................................................................... 4‐35 TABLE 4‐16: ANNUAL NUMBERS AND IMPACTS OF MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIALS PROPOSED FOR USE UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION
........................................................................................................................................................................ 4‐43 TABLE 4‐17: NUMBER AND LOCATION OF EVENTS INCLUDING SEAFLOOR DEVICES .................................................................... 4‐45 TABLE 4‐18: BYPRODUCTS FROM THE UNDERWATER DETONATION OF A HIGH BLAST EXPLOSIVE ................................................ 4‐48 TABLE 4‐19: FAILURE RATES AND LOW‐ORDER DETONATION RATES OF MILITARY ORDNANCE .................................................... 4‐48 TABLE 4‐20: CONSTITUENTS REMAINING AFTER LOW‐ORDER DETONATIONS AND FROM UNCONSUMED EXPLOSIVES ..................... 4‐48 TABLE 4‐21: COMBINED IMPACT ON MARINE SUBSTRATES FOR PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................. 4‐52 TABLE 5‐1: PROCEDURAL MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................................... 5‐1 TABLE 6‐1: POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN FROM EACH STRESSOR .. 6‐1 TABLE B.1‐1: PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL GROUNDFISH MANAGEMENT UNIT ......................................................... B‐2 vi Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment TABLE B.1‐2: PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL COASTAL PELAGIC SPECIES MANAGEMENT UNIT ........................................ B‐5 TABLE B.1‐3: PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES MANAGEMENT UNIT .................................... B‐5 TABLE B.1‐4: WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL BOTTOMFISH MANAGEMENT UNIT ............................ B‐7 TABLE B.1‐5: WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL CRUSTACEAN MANAGEMENT UNIT ............................ B‐8 TABLE B.1‐6: WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL CRUSTACEAN MANAGEMENT UNIT ............................ B‐8 TABLE B.1‐7: WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL PRECIOUS CORALS MANAGEMENT UNIT ...................... B‐9 TABLE B.1‐8: WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT UNIT ........... B‐10 TABLE B.1‐9: WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL PELAGIC MANAGEMENT UNIT ................................. B‐14 vii Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
° degree < less than DoD DS DWADS Department of Defense Doppler Sonar Deep Water Active Distributed System µPa micropascal A‐A Air‐to‐Air AAV Amphibious Assault Vehicle EFEX Expeditionary Fires Exercise A‐G Air‐to‐Ground EFH Essential Fish Habitat Air‐to‐Surface EFHA Essential Fish Habitat Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement A‐S AAW Anti‐Air Warfare ACM Air Combat Maneuver AD EEZ ELCAS Air Defense ADEX EMATT Air Defense Exercise AG EOD Exclusive Economic Zone Elevated Causeway System Expendable Mobile ASW Training Target Explosive Ordnance Disposal airgun EW OPS Electronic Warfare Operations ALMDS Airborne Laser Mine Detection System EXTORP Exercise Torpedo AMNS Airborne Mine Neutralization System F Fahrenheit AMW Amphibious Warfare FEP Fishery Ecosystem Plan ARPA Advanced Research Projects Agency FFG Frigate AS BaCrO4 BARSTUR BMUS BOMBEX C.F.R. CG COMPTUEX CVN dB dBA DDG DICASS FMC Fishery Management Council Bottomfish Management Unit Species FMP Fishery Management Plan FORACS Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site FP Force Protection F.R. Federal Register Composition 4 ft. feet Code of Federal Regulations 2
square feet ft. G GIS GUNEX centimeters CMUS CSSQT Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa cm CRRC fathoms Chaff Exercise CHCRT CRE Forward Looking Sonar fm cruiser CHAFFEX CRAMP FLS Celsius C‐4 Flare Exercise barium chromate Barking Sands Underwater Range Extension C Fire Support Exercise Anti‐Submarine Warfare Bombing Exercise BSURE CPS FLAREX Anti‐Surface Warfare ASW CPAAA FIREX submarine tender ASUW h Crustacean Management Unit Species HAPC Composite Training Unit Exercise HATS HBX Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area Coastal Pelagic Species HCOTA Coral Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program HE Coral Reef Ecosystems HF gauss Geographic Information System Gunnery Exercise depth Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Hawaii Area Tracking System Hexahydro - 1, 3, 5 Trinitro-8-Triazine Helicopter Offshore Training Area High Explosive High‐Frequency Combat Rubber Raiding Craft HFAS High‐Frequency Active Sonar Combat System Ship Qualification Test HMS Highly Migratory Species aircraft carrier HRC Hawaii Range Complex decibel HSP decibel, A‐weighted HSTT destroyer Hz Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy IAC viii Habitat Suitability Probability Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing hertz Integrated Anti‐Submarine Warfare Course Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment in. inches MSO Maritime Security Operations in.3 cubic inches MTR Mine Training Range IEER Improved Extended Echo Ranging MUS ISTT Improved Surface Tow Target JTFEX kg NAVSEA Management Unit Species Naval Sea Systems Command Joint Task Force Exercise Navy United States Department of the Navy kilograms NEM Non‐Explosive Practice Munition 2 kilograms per square meters NEPA National Environmental Policy Act kg/m3 kilograms per cubic meters NEPM Non‐Explosive Practice Munition kg/m
kHz kilohertz km kilometers km2 square kilometers lb. LCM NEW NISMF nm nm2 pounds Landing Craft, Mechanized NMAUI LCS Littoral Combat Ship NMFS LCU Landing Craft, Utility NW LF Low‐Frequency NWHI LHA amphibious assault ship nV LHD amphibious assault ship OASIS LPD amphibious transport dock LSD dock landing ship LTR Laser Training Range m 2
m MAC MANPADS MCBH MCM MCTAB MEM METOC MF OS square meters oz. Missile Exercise‐Man‐Portable‐Air MISSILEX MIW MLCD mm Monument MSA PC Marine Corps Base Hawaii PCB Mine Countermeasure Exercise PCMUS nautical miles square nautical miles Test area north of Maui National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Northwest Hawaiian Islands nanovolt Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Operating Area Offshore Petroleum Discharge System offshore ounce lead azide lead (II) oxide Patrol Coastal Ship polychlorinated biphenyl Precious Coral Management Unit Species Marine Corps Training area Bellows PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council military expended materials PHCRT Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa Meteorology and Oceanography PHDSA Pearl Harbor Defensive Sea Area Mid‐Frequency milligrams per liter mi.2 PbO Defense System Mid‐Frequency Active Sonar mi. Pb(N3)2 Multistatic Active Coherent mg/L MHHW OPDS meters MFAS MHI OEIS OPAREA Net Explosive Weight Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility PMSR PMUS ppb Mean Higher High Water ppt PRIA Main Hawaiian Islands miles psu Point Mugu Sea Range Pelagic Management Unit Species parts per billion parts per thousand Pacific Remote Island Areas Practical Salinity Unit square miles R (1) Radius Missile Exercise R (2) Restricted Area r0 Mine Warfare Marine Life Conservation District RDX millimeters REXTORP Papahanaunokuakea Marine RHIB National Monument RMMV Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation rms and Management Act RMS ix charge radius Royal Demolition Explosive Recoverable Exercise Torpedo Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat Remote Multi‐Mission Vehicle root mean square Remote Minehunting System Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing ROV seconds S‐A Supporting Arms Coordination Exercise SAS Synthetic Aperture Sonar SCB Southern California Bight SCC Submarine Command Course SD Swimmer Detection sonar SDST Ship Deployable Seaborne Target Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility SHAREM SINKEX SOAR SOCAL SOP SPAWAR Ship ASW Readiness and Evaluation Measuring Sinking Exercise Southern California Anti‐Submarine Southern California standard operating procedure Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command SPL Sound Pressure Level S‐S Surface‐to‐Surface SSBN fleet ballistic missile submarine SSGN guided missile submarine SSN SSTC Study Area STW SUA SUSTAINEX SWATH attack submarine Silver Strand Training Complex HSTT Study Area Strike Warfare Special Use Airspace Sustainment Exercise Special Warfare Training Area Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull SWM Shallow Water Minefield TAR Training Area and Range TMA Tactical Maneuvering Area TNT trinitrotoluene TORP TORPEX TRACKEX UISS UNDET U.S. U.S.C. USW USWEX VHF WPRFMC WSCOA yd. YP Surface‐to‐Air SACEX SWAT yd.2 Remotely Operated Vehicle s SESEF Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Torpedoes Torpedo Exercise Tracking Exercise Unmanned Influence Sweep System Underwater Detonation United States United States Code Undersea Warfare Undersea Warfare Exercise Very High Frequency Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Western San Clemente Operating Area yards x square yards Yard Patrol Craft
Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 1 INTRODUCTION
As required by the Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the purpose of this document is to present the findings of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment conducted by the United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy). The objective of this EFH Assessment is to evaluate how Navy training and testing activities proposed to occur within the Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area may affect EFH designated by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. This EFH Assessment includes a description of the Navy’s Proposed Action, an overview of the EFH designated within the activity area, an analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on EFH for the managed fish and their food resources, and proposed mitigation measures selected to minimize any potential adverse effects that could result from the Proposed Action. Additional details regarding the HSTT activities, the affected environment, and the potential environmental effects associated with ongoing and proposed naval activities are contained in the Draft HSTT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) (U.S. Department of the Navy 2012a). The Marine Resources Assessments for the Southern California Operating Area (OPAREA) (U.S. Department of the Navy 2008a) and Hawaiian Islands OPAREA (U.S. Department of the Navy 2005a) also contain comprehensive descriptions of the marine environment including climate; marine geology; physical, chemical, and biological oceanography; marine habitats; and protected species in the Study Area. These documents are available to the public and can be obtained from the Navy’s Marine Resources Assessments website. 1 This EFH Assessment will be coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the responsible agency for EFH regulatory enforcement and consultations. NMFS has been informed of project details described in this report and has been involved in coordination and consultation pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The Navy is the agency responsible for consulting on impacts to EFH for the Proposed Action. This EFH Assessment is being developed concurrently with the HSTT EIS/OEIS. 1.1
PREVIOUS ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENTS
The Navy previously submitted Essential Fish Habitat Assessments (EFHAs) for the Southern California (SOCAL) Range Complex EIS/OEIS (U.S. Department of the Navy 2008b), the Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) EIS (U.S. Department of the Navy 2010a), and the Hawaii Range Complex (HRC) EIS/OEIS (U.S. Department of the Navy 2007). For the SOCAL Range Complex EFHA (December 2008), the analysis concluded that adverse effects to EFH would occur; however, those effects would be minimal and temporary based on established mitigation measures. Through consultation, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concurred that, with the inclusion of the mitigation measures, EFH impacts were adequately addressed and further mitigation measure recommendations were not required. Mitigation measures include: avoiding the placement of undersea equipment (cables, hydrophones, mine shapes) on hard‐bottom habitat; establishing buffer zones around kelp beds for ordnance use; to the extent practicable, the quick recovery of mine shapes used during training; and implementation of a long‐term, nearshore (from SCI) monitoring program. 1
https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_hq_pp/navfac_environmental/mra 1‐1 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment For the SSTC EIS, the Navy determined that the proposed action could result in adverse effects to Essential Fish Habitat and initiated consultation with NMFS by submitting an EFHA on March 22, 2010. In response to comments provided by NMFS, Navy submitted a revised EFHA on September 27, 2010. The following mitigation and reporting requirements were addressed: updated benthic habitat mapping, pre‐event beach survey, eelgrass mitigation, and underwater detonation reporting. On October 13, 2010, NMFS provided the Navy with five specific Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations; 1) Complete a nearshore benthic habitat survey, 2) Use the survey to avoid sensitive habitats during certain operations, 3) Provide to NMFS all location data for underwater explosive detonations, 4) Cease beach impacting activities if grunion spawning is identified, and 5) Conduct a pre‐construction survey for Caulerpa prior to removal of piles and cease operations if Caulerpa is detected. The consultation was completed on November 10, 2011 with the submission of a letter by the Navy outlining its approach to implementing NMFS’ conservation recommendations. The Navy completed the survey in 2011 and will consider the results in the conduct of future operations (recommendations 1 and 2). Classification requirements prevent the Navy from providing the level of location detail asked for in recommendation 3, but the Navy did provide general locations. Regarding recommendation 4, the Navy will inform NMFS on those occasions where these operations take place during grunion spawning. The Navy is exempted from the Caulerpa survey requirement according to NOAA’s Caulerpa Control Protocol. The Navy also analyzed potential impacts on fish and essential fish habitat from training and testing activities in the HRC EIS/OEIS in its 2007 EFHA. The analysis concluded that no adverse effects would occur with implementation of mitigation measures. In April 2008, the Pacific Islands Regional Office of NMFS concurred with the Navy’s assessment and concluded that the proposed project and alternatives would have no adverse impacts to essential fish habitat, provided that the proposed mitigation measures were implemented to protect essential fish habitat in the area of operation. Mitigation measures included conducting exercises away from sensitive essential fish habitat and habitat areas of particular concern. Mitigation measures also included restricting amphibious landings to specific areas of designated beaches and restricting the use of explosive charges to only sandy areas to avoid or minimize impacts to coral and conducting activities in open ocean away from sensitive essential fish habitat, avoiding areas of live coral during inshore activities, and restricting amphibious landing to specific areas of designated beaches. 1‐2 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 2 PROPOSED ACTION
The Navy’s Proposed Action is to conduct training and testing activities—which include the use of active sonar and explosives—throughout the in‐water areas around the Hawaiian Islands and off the coast of Southern California (SOCAL), the transit corridor between Hawaii and SOCAL, and Navy pierside locations. The Proposed Action includes activities such as sonar maintenance and gunnery exercises that are conducted concurrently with ship transits and may occur outside the geographic boundaries of Navy range complexes. The Proposed Action also includes pierside sonar testing that is conducted as part of overhaul, modernization, maintenance and repair activities at Navy piers located in Hawaii and Southern California. Through this EFH Assessment, the Navy will: •
•
•
•
•
Reassess the environmental EFH analyses of Navy at‐sea training and testing activities contained in three existing, but separate EIS/OEISs, and consolidate these analyses into a single EFH Assessment. The EFH Assessments from the three EIS/OEIS documents being consolidated include the Hawaii Range Complex (HRC), SOCAL Range Complex, and the SSTC. Analyze activities and sound sources to account for those not addressed in previous assessments. Analyze the potential environmental impacts of training and testing activities in additional areas (areas not covered in previous NEPA documents) where training and testing historically occurs, including Navy ports, naval shipyards, and Navy‐contractor shipyards and the transit corridor between Hawaii and SOCAL. Update the at‐sea environmental impact analyses in the previous documents to account for force structure changes, including those resulting from the development, testing, and use of weapons, platforms, and systems that will be operational by 2019. Update environmental analyses with the best available science and most current acoustic analysis methods to evaluate the potential effects of training and testing activities on the marine environment. In this section, the Navy will describe the HSTT Study Area (Study Area) and identify the primary mission areas under which training and testing activities are conducted. Each warfare community conducts activities that uniquely contribute to the success of a primary mission area (described in Section 2.2, Primary Mission Areas). Each primary mission area requires unique skills, sensors, weapons, and technologies to accomplish the mission. For example, in the primary mission area of anti‐submarine warfare, surface, submarine, and aviation communities each utilize different skills, sensors, and weapons to locate, track, and eliminate submarine threats. The testing community contributes to the success of anti‐submarine warfare by anticipating and identifying technologies and systems that respond to the needs of the warfare communities. As each warfare community develops its basic skills and integrates them into combined units and strike groups, the problems of communication, coordination and planning, movement and positioning of naval forces and targeting/delivery of weapons become increasingly complex. This complexity creates a need for coordinated training and testing between the fleets and systems commands. In order to address the activities needed to accomplish training and testing in the EIS/OEIS, the Navy has broken down each training and testing activity into basic components that are analyzed for their potential environmental impacts. Chapter 2 of the EIS/OEIS provides detailed discussion of how the 2‐1 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment training and testing activities occur and the platforms, weapons, and systems that are required to complete the activities. This chapter of the EFHA is organized into five sections: •
•
•
•
•
2.1
Section 2.1 (Description of the Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Study Area) outlines the area where training and testing activities would occur. Section 2.2 (Primary Mission Areas) outlines the primary mission areas. Section 2.3 (Description of Sonar, Ordnance/Munitions, Targets, and Other Systems Employed in the Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Events) provides information on the sonar systems, ordnance and munitions, and targets utilized during training and testing activities. Section 2.4 (Proposed Activities) outlines the proposed training and testing activities. Section 2.5 (Proposed Action) provides a list all of the training and testing activities that are a part of the Proposed Action as well as the location they will occur, the number of annual events, and the number and type of ordnance that will be used. DESCRIPTION OF THE HAWAII-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING STUDY
AREA
The Study Area is composed of established operating and warning areas across the north‐central Pacific Ocean, from Southern California west to Hawaii and the International Date Line. The Study Area includes three existing Navy range complexes: the SOCAL Range Complex, HRC, and SSTC. In addition to these range complexes, the Study Area also includes Navy pierside locations where sonar maintenance and testing activities occur outside the Navy range complexes, and transit corridors on the high seas that are not part of the range complexes, where training and sonar testing may occur during vessel transit. 2 A range complex is a designated set of specifically bounded geographic areas and encompasses a water component (above and below the surface), airspace, and may encompass a land component where training and testing of military platforms, tactics, munitions, explosives, and electronic warfare systems occurs. Range complexes include established ocean operating areas (OPAREAs) and Special Use Airspace (SUA), which may be further divided to provide better control of the area and events for safety reasons. •
Operating Area. An ocean area defined by geographic coordinates with defined surface and subsurface areas and associated SUA. OPAREAs may include the following: o
Danger Zones. A danger zone is a defined water area used for target practice (gunnery), bombing, rocket firing or other especially hazardous military activities. Danger zones are established pursuant to statutory authority of the Secretary of the Army and are administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. Danger zones may be closed to the public on a full‐time or intermittent basis (33 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] Part 334). 2
Vessel transit corridors are the routes typically used by Navy assets to traverse from one area to another. The route depicted in Figure 2.1‐1 is the shortest route between Hawaii and Southern California, making it the quickest and most fuel‐efficient. Depicted vessel transit corridor is notional and may not represent the actual routes used by ships and submarines transiting from Southern California to Hawaii and back. Actual routes navigated are based on a number of factors including, but not limited to, weather and operational requirements. 2‐2 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing o
•
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Restricted Areas. A restricted area is a defined water area for the purpose of prohibiting or limiting public access to the area. Restricted areas generally provide security for Government property and/or protection to the public from the risks of damage or injury arising from the Government's use of that area (33 C.F.R. Part 334). Special Use Airspace. Airspace of defined dimensions where activities must be confined because of their nature or where limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not part of those activities (Federal Aviation Administration 2008). Types of SUA most commonly found in range complexes include the following: o
Restricted Areas. Airspace where aircraft are subject to restriction due to the existence of unusual, often invisible hazards (e.g., release of ordnance) to aircraft. Some areas are under strict control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and some are shared with non‐
military agencies. o
Military Operations Areas. Airspace with defined vertical and lateral limits established for the purpose of separating or segregating certain military training activities from instrument flight rules traffic and to identify visual flight rules traffic where these activities are conducted. o
Warning Area. Areas of defined dimensions, extending from 3 nautical miles (nm) outward from the coast of the United States, which serve to warn nonparticipating aircraft of potential danger. o
Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace. Airspace that is Federal Aviation Administration defined and is not over an existing OPAREA. It is used to contain specified activities, such as military flight training, that are segregated from other instrument flight rules air traffic. The Study Area includes the transit corridor and only the at‐sea components of SOCAL, HRC, and SSTC, and select pierside locations. The land‐based portions of the range complexes are not a part of the Study Area and Navy activities occurring in these locations (including aviation activities occurring over these land areas) will be or have been addressed under separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. Some training and testing occurs outside the OPAREAs (i.e., some activities are conducted seaward of the OPAREAs, and a limited amount of active sonar is used shoreward of the OPAREAs at and in transit to and from Navy piers). The Study Area and typical transit corridor are depicted in Figure 2‐1. 2.1.1
HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX
The HRC geographically encompasses ocean areas located around the Hawaiian Islands chain. The ocean areas extend from 16 degrees (°) north (N) latitude to 43° N latitude and from 150° west (W) longitude to the International Date Line, forming an area approximately 1,700 nm by 1,600 nm. The largest component of the HRC is the Temporary OPAREA, extending north and west from the island of Kauai, and comprising over 2 million square nautical miles (nm2) of air and sea space. This area is used for Navy ship transits throughout the year, and is used only a few times each year for missile defense testing activities. In spite of the Temporary OPAREA’s size, nearly all of the training and testing activities 2‐3 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment in the HRC take place within the smaller Hawaii OPAREA, that portion of the range complex immediately surrounding the island chain from Hawaii to Kauai (Figure 2‐1 and Figure 2‐2). The Hawaii OPAREA consists of 235,000 nm2 of SUA, and sea and undersea ocean areas. 2.1.1.1
Special Use Airspace
The HRC includes over 115,000 nm2 of SUA. As depicted in Figure 2‐1 and Figure 2‐2, this airspace is almost entirely over the ocean and includes warning areas, air traffic control assigned airspace, and restricted areas. •
•
•
2.1.1.2
Warning Areas (W‐) of the HRC make up more than 58,000 nm2 of SUA and include the following: W‐186, W‐187, W‐188, W‐189, W‐190, W‐191, W‐192, W‐193, W‐194, and W‐196. The air traffic control assigned airspace areas of the HRC account for more than 57,000 nm2 of SUA and include the following areas: Luna East, Luna Central, Luna West, Mahi, Haka, Mela South, Mela Central, Mela North, Nalu, Taro, Kaela East, Kaela West, Pele, and Pele South. The restricted area airspace over or near land areas within the HRC make up another 81 nm2 of SUA and include Restricted Area (R)‐3101, R‐3103, and R‐3107. Kaula Island is located completely within R‐3107, west‐southwest of Kauai. This EFH Assessment will include analysis of only the marine environment surrounding Kaula Island, and not potential impacts to the island itself. Impacts to the natural and cultural resources of Kaula Island were analyzed in the HRC EIS/OEIS (U.S. Department of the Navy 2008c) and remain current. Sea and Undersea Space
The HRC includes the ocean areas as described above, as well as specific training areas around the islands of Kauai (Figure 2‐3), Oahu (Figure 2‐4), and Maui (Figure 2‐5). The HRC also includes the ocean portion of the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) on Kauai (Figure 2‐3), which is both a fleet training range and a fleet and DoD testing range. The facility includes 1,020 nm2 of instrumented ocean area at depths between 1,800 feet (ft.) (549 meters [m]) and 15,000 ft. (4,572 m). 2‐4 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 1 2 Figure 2‐1: Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Study Area
2‐5 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 2‐2: Hawaii Range Complex 2‐6 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 2‐3: Navy Training Areas Around Kauai 2‐7 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 2‐4: Oahu Training Locations 2‐8 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 2‐5: Maui Training Locations 2‐9 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 2.1.2
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RANGE COMPLEX
The SOCAL Range Complex is situated between Dana Point and San Diego, and extends more than 600 nm southwest into the Pacific Ocean (Figure 2‐6). The two primary components of the SOCAL Range Complex are the ocean OPAREAs and the SUA. These components encompass 120,000 nm2 of sea space; 113,000 nm2 of SUA; and over 56 square miles (mi2.) (145 square kilometers [km2]) of land area. Although the land activities at San Clemente Island were analyzed in the SOCAL EIS/OEIS (U.S. Department of the Navy 2008d) and will not be analyzed in this EFH Assessment, the offshore and nearshore areas around San Clemente Island are included for analysis (Figure 2‐7and Figure 2‐8). 2.1.2.1
Special Use Airspace
Most of the SUA in the SOCAL Range Complex is defined by W‐291 (Figure 2‐9). Warning Area 291 extends vertically from the ocean surface to 80,000 ft. (24,400 m) above mean sea level and encompasses 113,000 nm2 of airspace. In addition to W‐291, the SOCAL Range Complex includes the following two areas: •
•
2.1.2.2
Western San Clemente OPAREA is a SUA that extends from the surface to 5,000 ft. (1,500 m) above mean sea level. Helicopter Offshore Training Area is located off the coast of San Diego, and extends from the surface to 1,000 ft. (300 m) above mean sea level. Sea and Undersea Space
The SOCAL Range Complex includes approximately 120,000 nm2 of sea and undersea space, largely defined as that ocean area underlying the Southern California SUA described above. The SOCAL Range Complex also extends beyond this airspace to include the surface and subsurface area from the northeastern border of W‐291 to the coast of San Diego County, and includes San Diego Bay. In addition, a small part of the Point Mugu Sea Range is included in the Study Area. This approximately 1,000 nm2 area of the Point Mugu Sea Range, and only that part of the Point Mugu Sea Range, is used by the Navy for anti‐submarine warfare training conducted in the course of major range events and is analyzed under this document. The remaining portions of the 27,278 nm2 Point Mugu Sea Range are subject to separate NEPA analysis (U.S. Department of the Navy 2002). 2‐10 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 2‐6: Southern California Range Complex 2‐11 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 2‐7: San Clemente Island Offshore Training Areas 2‐12 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 2‐8: San Clemente Island Nearshore Training Areas 2‐13 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 2‐9: Southern California Training Areas 2‐14 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 2.1.3
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment SILVER STRAND TRAINING COMPLEX
The SSTC is an integrated set of training areas located on and adjacent to the Silver Strand, a narrow, sandy isthmus separating the San Diego Bay from the Pacific Ocean. It is divided into two non‐contiguous areas: SSTC‐North and SSTC‐South (Figure 2‐10). The SSTC‐North includes 10 oceanside boat training lanes (numbered as Boat Lanes 1‐10), ocean anchorage areas (numbered 101 through 178), bayside water training areas (Alpha through Hotel), and the Lilly Ann drop zone. The boat training lanes are each 500 yards (yd.) (457.2 m) wide stretching 4,000 yd. (3,657.6 m) seaward and forming a 5,000‐yd. long (4,572.0 m long) contiguous training area. The SSTC‐South includes four oceanside boat training lanes (numbered as Boat Lanes 11‐14). The anchorages lie offshore of Coronado in the Pacific Ocean and overlap a portion of Boat Lanes 1–10. The anchorages are each 654 yd. (598.0 m) in diameter and are grouped together in an area located primarily due west of SSTC‐N, east of Zuniga Jetty and the restricted areas on approach to the San Diego Bay entrance. While there are land ranges in the SSTC, the land activities at SSTC ranges were analyzed in the SSTC EIS (U.S. Department of the Navy 2011) and will not be analyzed in this EFH Assessment. The analysis of the land activities with the potential for impact to EFH remains valid from the prior SSTC EFHA, as those activities remain unchanged. 2.1.4
OCEAN OPERATING AREAS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF EXISTING RANGE COMPLEXES
(TRANSIT CORRIDOR)
In addition to the three range complexes that are part of the Study Area, a transit corridor outside the boundaries of the range complexes is also included as part of the Study Area in the analysis. Although not part of any defined range complex, this transit corridor is important to the Navy in that it provides adequate air, sea, and undersea space in which vessels and aircraft conduct training and some sonar maintenance and testing while en route between Southern California and Hawaii. The transit corridor, defined by the great circle route (e.g., shortest distance) from San Diego to the center of the HRC, as depicted in Figure 2‐1, and is generally used by ships transiting between the SOCAL Range Complex and HRC. While in transit, ships and aircraft would, at times, conduct basic and routine unit level training such as gunnery, bombing, and sonar training, as long as the training does not interfere with the primary objective of reaching their intended destination. Ships also conduct sonar maintenance, which includes active sonar transmissions. 2‐15 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 2‐10: Silver Strand Training Complex 2‐16 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 2.1.5
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment PIERSIDE LOCATIONS AND SAN DIEGO BAY
The Study Area includes select pierside locations where Navy surface ship and submarine sonar maintenance testing occur. For purposes of this EFH Assessment, pierside locations include channels and routes to and from Navy ports, and facilities associated with Navy ports and shipyards. These locations in the Study Area are located at Navy ports and naval shipyards in San Diego Bay, California and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (Figure 2‐11). In addition, some testing activities occur throughout San Diego Bay. Figure 2‐11: Navy Piers and Shipyards in San Diego and Pearl Harbor 2‐17 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 2.2
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment PRIMARY MISSION AREAS
The Navy categorizes training activities into functional warfare areas called primary mission areas. Training activities fall into the following eight primary mission areas: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anti‐Air Warfare Amphibious Warfare Strike Warfare Anti‐Surface Warfare Anti‐Submarine Warfare Electronic Warfare Mine Warfare Naval Special Warfare Most training activities addressed in this EFH Assessment are categorized under one of these primary mission areas; those activities that do not fall within one of these areas are in a separate category. Each warfare community (surface, subsurface, aviation, and special warfare) may train in some or all of these primary mission areas. The research and acquisition community also categorizes some, but not all, of its testing activities under these primary mission areas. The sonar, ordnance, munitions, and targets used in the training and testing activities are described in Section 2.3. A short description of individual training and testing events, as well the sonar and ordnance used and military expended materials is provided in Table 2‐3 through Table 2‐7 (Section 2.4). 2.2.1
ANTI-AIR WARFARE
The mission of anti‐air warfare is to destroy or reduce enemy air and missile threats (including unmanned airborne threats) and serves two purposes: to protect U.S. forces from attacks from the air and to gain air superiority. Anti‐air warfare also includes providing U.S. forces with adequate attack warnings, while denying hostile forces the ability to gather intelligence about U.S. forces. Aircraft conduct anti‐air warfare through radar search, detection, identification, and engagement of airborne threats—generally by firing anti‐air missiles or cannon fire. Surface ships conduct anti‐air warfare through an array of modern anti‐aircraft weapon systems such as aircraft detecting radar, naval guns linked to radar‐directed fire‐control systems, surface‐to‐air missile systems, and radar‐controlled cannons for close‐in point defense. Impacts from anti‐air warfare activities conducted over land were analyzed in previous documents and remain valid. Testing of anti‐air warfare systems is required to ensure the equipment is fully functional under the conditions in which it will be used. Tests may be conducted on radar and other early‐warning detection and tracking systems, new guns or gun rounds, and missiles. Testing of these systems may be conducted on new ships and aircraft and on existing ships and aircraft following maintenance, repair, or modification. For some systems, tests are conducted periodically to assess operability. Additionally, tests may be conducted in support of scientific research to assess new and emerging technologies. Testing events are often integrated into training activities and in most cases the systems are used in the same manner in which they are used for fleet training activities. 2.2.2
AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE
The mission of amphibious warfare is to project military power from the sea to the shore through the use of naval firepower and Marine Corps landing forces. It is used to attack a threat located on land by a military force embarked on ships. Amphibious warfare operations include small unit reconnaissance or 2‐18 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment raid missions to large‐scale amphibious operations involving multiple ships and aircraft combined into a strike group. Amphibious warfare training ranges from individual, crew, and small unit events to large task force exercises. Individual and crew training include amphibious vehicles and naval gunfire support training. Such training includes shore assaults, boat raids, airfield or port seizures, and reconnaissance. Large‐scale amphibious exercises involve ship‐to‐shore maneuver, naval fire support, such as shore bombardment, and air strike and close air support training. However, only those portions of amphibious warfare training that occur at sea (up to the mean high tide mark) will be analyzed, as no land‐based activities are analyzed in this EFH Assessment. Land impacts were analyzed in previous documents and remain valid. Testing of guns, munitions, aircraft, ships, and amphibious boats and vehicles used in amphibious warfare are often integrated into training activities and in most cases the systems are used in the same manner in which they are used for fleet training activities. These tests, as well as full operational evaluations on existing amphibious vessels and vehicles following maintenance, repair, or modernization, may be conducted independently or in conjunction with other amphibious ship and aircraft activities. Testing is performed to ensure effective ship‐to‐shore coordination and transport of personnel, equipment, and supplies. Tests may also be conducted periodically on other systems, vessels, and aircraft intended for amphibious operations to assess operability and to investigate efficacy of new technologies. 2.2.3
STRIKE WARFARE
The mission of strike warfare is to conduct offensive attacks on land‐based targets, such as refineries, power plants, bridges, major roadways, and ground forces to reduce the enemy’s ability to wage war. Strike warfare employs weapons by manned and unmanned air, surface, submarine, and Navy special warfare assets in support of extending dominance over enemy territory (power projection). Strike warfare includes training of fixed‐wing attack aircraft pilots and aircrews in the delivery of precision‐guided munitions, non‐guided munitions, rockets, and other ordnance against land‐based targets. Not all strike mission training events involve dropping ordnance and instead the event is simulated with video footage obtained by onboard sensors. Testing of weapons used in strike warfare is conducted to develop new types of weapons that provide better capabilities and to ensure currently developed weapons perform as designed and deployed. Tests may also be conducted periodically on other systems, vessels, or aircraft intended for strike warfare operations to assess operability and to investigate efficacy of new technologies. Those strike warfare activities that occur over land were analyzed in previous documents. Analyses related to those activities remain valid. 2.2.4
ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE
The mission of anti‐surface warfare is to defend against enemy ships or boats. In the conduct of anti‐surface warfare, aircraft use cannons, air‐launched cruise missiles or other precision‐guided munitions; ships employ torpedoes, naval guns, and surface‐to‐surface missiles; and submarines attack surface ships using torpedoes or submarine‐launched, anti‐ship cruise missiles. 2‐19 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Anti‐surface warfare training includes surface‐to‐surface gunnery and missile exercises, air‐to‐surface gunnery and missile exercises, and submarine missile or exercise torpedo launch events. Testing of weapons used in anti‐surface warfare is conducted to develop new technologies and to assess weapon performance and operability with new systems and platforms, such as unmanned systems. Tests include various air‐to‐surface guns and missiles, surface‐to‐surface guns and missiles, and bombing tests. Testing events may be integrated into training activities to test aircraft or aircraft systems in the delivery of ordnance on a surface target. In most cases the tested systems are used in the same manner in which they are used for fleet training activities. 2.2.5
ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE
The mission of anti‐submarine warfare is to locate, neutralize, and defeat hostile submarine threats to surface forces. Anti‐submarine warfare is based on the principle of a layered defense of surveillance and attack aircraft, ships, and submarines all searching for hostile submarines. These forces operate together or independently to gain early warning and detection, and to localize, track, target, and attack hostile submarine threats. Anti‐submarine warfare training addresses basic skills such as detection and classification of submarines, distinguishing between sounds made by enemy submarines and those of friendly submarines, ships, and marine life. More advanced, integrated anti‐submarine warfare training exercises are conducted in coordinated, at‐sea training events involving submarines, ships, and aircraft. This training integrates the full spectrum of anti‐submarine warfare from detecting and tracking a submarine to attacking a target using either exercise torpedoes or simulated weapons. Testing of anti‐submarine warfare systems is conducted to develop new technologies and assess weapon performance and operability with new systems and platforms, such as unmanned systems. Testing uses ships, submarines, and aircraft to demonstrate capabilities of torpedoes, missiles, countermeasure systems, and underwater surveillance and communications systems. Torpedo development, testing, and refinement are critical to successful anti‐submarine warfare. At‐sea sonar testing ensures systems are fully functional in an open‐ocean environment prior to delivery to the fleet for operational use. Anti‐submarine warfare systems on fixed wing aircraft and helicopters (including dipping sonar) are tested to evaluate the ability to search and track a submarine or similar target. Sonobuoys deployed from surface vessels and aircraft are tested to verify the integrity and performance of a group, or lot, of sonobuoys in advance of delivery to the fleet for operational use. The sensors and systems on board helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft are tested to ensure that tracking systems perform to specifications and meet operational requirements. Tests may be conducted as part of a large‐scale fleet training event involving submarines, ships, fixed‐wing aircraft, and helicopters. These integrated training events offer opportunities to conduct research and acquisition activities and to train aircrew in the use of new or newly enhanced systems during a large‐scale, complex exercise. 2.2.6
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
The mission of electronic warfare is to degrade the enemy’s ability to use their electronic systems, such as communication systems and radar, to confuse or deny them the ability to defend their forces and assets. Electronic warfare is also used to recognize an emerging threat and counter an enemy’s attempt to degrade the electronic capabilities of the Navy. 2‐20 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Typical electronic warfare activities include threat avoidance training, signals analysis for intelligence purposes, and use of airborne and surface electronic jamming devices to defeat tracking and communications systems. Impacts of overland air activities were analyzed in previous documents and remain valid. Testing of electronic warfare systems is conducted to improve the capabilities of systems and ensure compatibility with new systems. Testing involves the use of aircraft, surface ships, and submarine crews to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic systems. Typical electronic warfare testing activities include the use of airborne and surface electronic jamming devices and chaff and flares to defeat tracking and communications systems. Chaff tests evaluate newly developed or enhanced chaff, chaff dispensing equipment, or modified aircraft systems’ use against chaff deployment. Flare tests evaluate deployment performance and crew competency with newly developed or enhanced flares, flare dispensing equipment, or modified aircraft systems’ use against flare deployment. 2.2.7
MINE WARFARE
The mission of mine warfare is to detect, and avoid or neutralize (disable) mines to protect Navy ships and submarines and to maintain free access to ports and shipping lanes. Mine warfare also includes offensive mine laying to gain control of or deny the enemy access to sea space. Naval mines can be laid by ships (including purpose‐built minelayers), submarines or aircraft. Mine warfare training includes exercises in which ships, aircraft, submarines, underwater vehicles, or marine mammal detection systems search for mines. Personnel train to destroy or disable mines by attaching and detonating underwater explosives to the mine. Other neutralization techniques involve impacting the mine with a bullet‐like projectile or intentionally triggering the mine to detonate. Testing and development of mine warfare systems is conducted to improve sonar, laser, and magnetic detectors intended to hunt, locate, and record the positions of mines for avoidance or subsequent neutralization. Mine warfare testing and development falls into two primary categories: mine detection and classification and mine countermeasure and neutralization. Mine detection and classification testing involves the use of air, surface, and subsurface vessels and uses sonar, including towed and side scan sonar, mine countermeasure systems, and unmanned vehicles to support mine detection and classification testing. These mine detection systems are generally helicopter‐based and are sometimes used in conjunction with a mine neutralization system. Mine countermeasure and neutralization testing includes the use of air, surface, and subsurface units and uses tracking devices, countermeasure and neutralization systems, and general purpose bombs to evaluate the effectiveness of neutralizing mine threats. Most neutralization tests use mine shapes, or non‐explosive practice mines, to evaluate a new or enhanced capability. During an airborne neutralization test, a previously located mine is destroyed or rendered nonfunctional using a helicopter based system that may involve the firing of a projectile or the deployment of a towed neutralization system. A small percentage of mine warfare tests require the use of high‐explosive mines to evaluate and confirm the ability of the system to neutralize a high‐explosive mine under operational conditions. The majority of mine warfare systems are currently deployed by ships and helicopters; however, future mine warfare missions will increasingly rely on unmanned vehicles. Tests may also be conducted in support of scientific research to support these new technologies. 2‐21 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 2.2.8
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE
The mission of naval special warfare is to conduct unconventional warfare, direct action, combat terrorism, special reconnaissance, information warfare, security assistance, counter‐drug operations, and recovery of personnel from hostile situations. Naval special warfare operations are highly specialized and require continual and intense training. Naval special warfare units are required to utilize a combination of specialized training, equipment, and tactics, including insertion and extraction operations using parachutes, submerged vehicles, rubber boats, and helicopters; boat‐to‐shore and boat‐to‐boat gunnery; underwater demolition training; reconnaissance; and small arms training. Land impacts were analyzed in previous documents and remain valid. Testing is conducted on both conventional and unconventional weapons used by naval special warfare units, including testing of submersible vehicles capable of inserting and extracting personnel or payloads into denied areas from strategic distances, active acoustic devices, underwater communications systems, and underwater demolition technologies. Doppler sonar and side scan sonar are tested for their ability to be used during extraction and insertion missions. 2.3
DESCRIPTIONS OF SONAR, ORDNANCE/MUNITIONS, TARGETS, AND OTHER SYSTEMS
EMPLOYED IN HAWAII-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING EVENTS
The Navy uses a variety of sensors, platforms, weapons, and other devices, including ones used to ensure the safety of Sailors and Marines, to meet its mission. Training and testing with these systems may introduce acoustic (sound) energy and expended materials into the environment. The environmental impact of these activities will be analyzed in Chapter 4 of this EFH Assessment. This section presents and organizes sonar systems, ordnance, munitions, targets, and other systems in a manner intended to facilitate understanding of both the activities that use them and the environmental effects analysis that is later described in Chapter 4 of this EFH Assessment. 2.3.1
2.3.1.1
SONAR AND OTHER ACOUSTIC SOURCES
What is Sonar?
Sonar is a technique that uses underwater sound to navigate, communicate, or detect underwater objects (the term sonar is also used for the equipment used to generate and receive sound). There are two basic types of sonar: active and passive. Active sonar emits sound waves that travel through the water, reflect off objects, and return to the receiver. Sonar is used to determine the distance to an underwater object by calculating the speed of sound in water and the time for the sound wave to travel to the object and back. For example, active sonar systems are used to track targets or to aid in navigation of the vessel by identifying known ocean floor features. Some whales, dolphins, and bats use echolocation, a similar technique, to identify their surroundings and to locate prey. Passive sonar uses listening equipment, such as underwater microphones (hydrophones) and receiving sensors on ships, submarines, aircraft and autonomous vehicles, to pick up underwater sounds. The advantage of passive sonar is that it places no sound in the water, and thus does not reveal the location of the listening vessel. Passive sonar can indicate the presence, character, and direction of ships and submarines; however, passive sonar is increasingly ineffective as modern submarines become quieter. 2‐22 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Passive sonar has no potential acoustic impact on the environment and, therefore, is not discussed further or analyzed within this EFH Assessment. All sounds, including sonar, are categorized by frequency. For this EFH Assessment, active sonar is categorized into four frequency ranges: low‐frequency, mid‐frequency, high‐frequency, and very high‐
frequency. •
Low‐frequency active sonar emits sounds at frequencies less than 1 kilohertz (kHz). Low‐frequency active sonar is useful for detecting objects at great distances because low‐
frequency sounds do not dissipate as rapidly as higher frequency sounds. •
Mid‐frequency active sonar emits sound at frequencies from 1 to 10 kHz. Mid‐frequency active sonar is the Navy’s primary tool for detecting and identifying submarines. Active sonar in this frequency range provides a valuable combination of range and target accuracy. •
High‐frequency active sonar emits sound at frequencies greater than 10 kHz, up to 100 kHz. High‐frequency sounds dissipate rapidly and have a small effective range; however, high‐
frequency sounds provide higher resolution of objects and it is useful at detecting and identifying smaller objects such as sea mines. •
Very high‐frequency sources are those that operate above 100 kHz but below 200 kHz. Modern sonar technology includes a variety of sonar sensor and processing systems. In concept, the simplest active sonar emits sound waves, or “pings,” sent out in multiple directions and the sound waves then reflect off of the target object in multiple directions (Figure 2‐12). The sonar source calculates the time it takes for the reflected sound waves to return; this calculation determines the distance to the target object. More sophisticated active sonar systems emit a ping and then rapidly scan or listen to the sound waves in a specific area. This provides both distance to the target and directional information. Even more advanced sonar systems use multiple receivers to listen to echoes from several directions simultaneously and provide efficient detection of both direction and distance. It should be noted that active sonar is rarely used continuously throughout the listed activities. In addition, when sonar is in use, the sonar ”pings” occur at intervals, referred to as a duty cycle, and the signals themselves are very short in duration. For example, a sonar that emits a 1 second ping every 10 seconds has a 10 percent duty cycle. Figure 2‐12: Principle of Active Sonar 2‐23 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment The Navy utilizes sonar systems and other acoustic sensors in support of a variety of mission requirements. Primary uses include detection of and defense against submarines (anti‐submarine warfare) and mines (mine warfare), safe navigation and effective communications, and oceanographic surveys. Specific examples of how sonar systems are used for Navy activities are discussed in the following sections. 2.3.1.2
Sonar Systems
Anti‐Submarine Warfare. Systems used in anti‐submarine warfare include sonar, torpedoes, and acoustic countermeasure devices. These systems are employed from a variety of platforms (surface ships, submarines, helicopters, and fixed‐wing aircraft). Surface ships conducting anti‐submarine warfare are typically equipped with hull‐mounted sonar (passive and active) for the detection of submarines. Helicopters use dipping sonar or sonobuoys (passive and active) to locate submarines (or submarine targets during training and testing exercises). Fixed‐wing aircraft deploy both active and passive expendable sonobuoys to assist in detecting and tracking submarines. Submarines are equipped with hull‐mounted sonar to detect, localize, and track other submarines and surface ships. Submarines primarily use passive sonar; active sonar is used mostly for navigation. There are also unmanned vehicles currently under development that will be used to deploy anti‐submarine warfare systems. Anti‐submarine warfare activities often use mid‐frequency (i.e., 1 to 10 kHz) active sonar, though low‐frequency and high‐frequency active sonar systems are also used for specialized purposes. The Navy is currently developing and testing sonar systems that may utilize lower frequencies and longer duty cycles—albeit at lower source levels—than current systems. However, these new systems would be operational only if they significantly increase the Navy's ability to detect and identify quiet submarine threats. The types of sonar systems and acoustic sensors used during anti‐submarine warfare sonar training and testing exercises include the following: •
Surface Ship Sonar Systems. A variety of surface ships operate hull‐mounted mid‐frequency active sonar during training exercises and testing activities (Figure 2‐13). Typically, only cruisers, destroyers, and frigates have surface ship sonar systems. Figure 2‐13: Guided Missile Destroyer with AN/SQS‐53 Sonar •
Submarine Sonar Systems. Submarines are equipped with hull‐mounted mid‐frequency and high‐frequency active sonar used to detect and target enemy submarines and surface ships 2‐24 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (Figure 2‐14). A submarine’s mission relies on its stealth; therefore, a submarine uses its active sonar sparingly because each sound emission gives away the submarine’s location. Figure 2‐14: Submarine AN/BQQ‐10 Active Sonar Array •
Aircraft Sonar Systems. Aircraft sonar systems include sonobuoys and dipping sonar. o
Sonobuoys: Sonobuoys are expendable devices that contain a transmitter and a hydrophone. The sounds collected by the sonobuoy are transmitted back to the aircraft for analysis. Sonobuoys are either active or passive and allow for short‐ and long‐range detection of surface ships and submarines. These systems are deployed by both helicopter and fixed‐wing patrol aircraft (Figure 2‐15). Figure 2‐15: Sonobuoys (e.g., AN/SSQ‐62) o
Dipping Sonar. Dipping sonar systems include recoverable devices lowered into the water via cable from manned and unmanned helicopters. The sonar detects underwater targets and determines the distance and movement of the target relative to the position of the helicopter (Figure 2‐16). 2‐25 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 2‐16: Helicopter Deploys Dipping Sonar •
Exercise Torpedoes. Torpedoes are equipped with sonar that helps the torpedoes find their targets. To understand how and when this torpedo sonar is used, the following description is provided. Surface ships, aircraft, and submarines primarily use torpedoes in anti‐submarine warfare (Figure 2‐17). Recoverable, non‐explosive torpedoes, categorized as either lightweight or heavyweight, are used during training and testing. Heavyweight torpedoes use a guidance system to operate the torpedo autonomously or remotely through an attached wire (guidance wire). The autonomous guidance systems operate either passively (listening for sounds generated by the target) or actively (pinging to search for the target). Torpedo training in the Study Area is mostly simulated—solid masses that approximate the weight and shape of a torpedo are fired, rather than fully functional torpedoes. Testing in the Study Area mostly uses fully functional exercise torpedoes. Figure 2‐17: Navy Torpedoes 2‐26 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing •
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Acoustic Countermeasures. Countermeasure devices are towed or free‐floating noisemakers that alter the acoustic signature of a Navy ship or submarine, thereby avoiding detection, or act as an alternative target for an incoming threat (e.g., torpedo). Countermeasures are either expendable or recoverable (Figure 2‐18). Figure 2‐18: Acoustic Countermeasures •
Anti‐Submarine Warfare Training Targets. These targets are equipped with one or more sound producing capabilities that allow the targets to better simulate actual submarines. To understand how and when these sound sources are used, the following description is provided. Anti‐submarine warfare training targets (Figure 2‐19) are autonomous undersea vehicles that are used to simulate target submarines. The training targets are equipped with one or more of the following devices: (1) acoustic projectors emitting sounds to simulate submarine acoustic signatures, (2) echo repeaters to simulate the characteristics of the echo of a sonar signal reflected from a submarine, and (3) magnetic sources that mimic those of a submarine. Figure 2‐19: Anti‐Submarine Warfare Training Targets Mine Warfare. Mine warfare training and testing activities use a variety of different sonar systems that are typically high‐frequency and very high‐frequency. These sonar systems (Figure 2‐20) are used to detect, locate, and characterize moored and bottom mines. The majority of mine warfare sonar systems can be deployed by more than one platform (i.e., helicopter, unmanned underwater vehicle, submarine, 2‐27 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment or surface ship) and may be interchangeable among platforms. Surface ships and submarines use sonar to detect mines and objects and minesweeping ships use a specialized variable‐depth mine detection and classification high‐frequency active sonar system to detect mines. Figure 2‐20: Mine Warfare Systems Safety, Navigation, Communications, and Oceanographic Systems. Naval ships, submarines, and unmanned vehicles rely on equipment and instrumentation that uses active sonar during both routine operations and training and testing events. Sonar systems are used to gauge water depth; detect and map objects, navigational hazards, and the ocean floor; and transmit communication signals. Other Acoustic Sensors. The Navy uses a variety of other acoustic sensors to protect ships anchored or at the pier, as well as shore facilities. These systems, both active and passive, detect potentially hostile swimmers, broadcast warnings to alert Navy divers of potential hazards, and gather information regarding ocean characteristics (ocean currents, wave measurements). They are generally stationary systems in Navy harbors and piers. Navy marine mammals (Atlantic bottlenose dolphins [Tursiops truncatus] and California sea lions [Zalophus californianus]) are also used to detect hostile swimmers around Navy facilities. A trained animal is deployed under behavioral control of a handler to find an intruding swimmer. Upon finding the 'target' of the search, the animal returns to the boat and alerts the animal handlers and the animals are given a localization marker or leg cuff that they attach to the intruder. Swimmers that have been marked with a leg cuff are reeled‐in by security support boat personnel via a line attached to the cuff. 2.3.2
ORDNANCE/MUNITIONS
Most ordnance and munitions used during training and testing events fall into three basic categories: projectiles, missiles, and bombs. Ordnance can be further defined by their net explosive weight (NEW), which is the actual weight in pounds of the explosive substance without the packaging, casings, bullets, etc. Net explosive weight is also the trinitrotoluene equivalent of energetic material, which is the 2‐28 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment standard measure of strength of bombs and other explosives. For example, a 2,000 pound (lb.) (907.1 kilogram [kg]) bomb may have anywhere from 600 to 1,000 lb. (272.1 to 453.6 kg) of NEW. Projectiles. Projectiles are fired during gunnery exercises from a variety of weapons, including pistols and rifles to large‐caliber turret mounted guns on the decks of Navy ships. Projectiles can be either high‐explosive munitions (e.g., certain cannon shells) or non‐explosive practice munitions (e.g., rifle/pistol bullets). Explosive rounds can be fused to either explode on impact or in the air (i.e., just prior to impact). Projectiles are broken down into three basic categories in this EFH Assessment: •
Small‐Caliber Projectiles. Includes projectiles up to 0.50 caliber (approximately 1/2‐inch [in.] diameter). Small‐caliber projectiles (e.g., bullets), are primarily fired from pistols, rifles, and machine guns (Figure 2‐21). Most small‐caliber projectiles are fired during training events for an individual Sailor to become and remain proficient. Figure 2‐21: Shipboard Small Arms Training •
Medium‐Caliber Projectiles. These projectiles are larger than .50 caliber, but smaller than 57 millimeter (mm) (approximately 2‐1/4 in. diameter). The most common size medium‐caliber projectiles are 20 mm, 25 mm, and 40 mm. Medium‐caliber projectiles are fired from machine guns operated by one to two crewmen and mounted on the deck of a ship, wing‐mounted guns on aircraft, and fully automated guns mounted on ships for defense against missile attack (Figure 2‐22). Medium‐caliber projectiles also include 40 mm grenades, which can be fired from hand‐held grenade launcher or crew‐served deck‐mounted guns. Medium‐caliber projectiles can be non‐explosive practice munitions or high‐explosive projectiles. High‐explosive projectiles are usually fused to detonate on impact; however, advanced high‐explosive projectiles can detonate based on time, distance, or proximity to a target. 2‐29 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 2‐22: Shipboard Medium‐Caliber Projectiles •
Large‐Caliber Projectiles. These include projectiles 57 mm and larger. The largest projectile currently in service has a 5 in. (12.7 centimeter [cm]) diameter (Figure 2‐23), but larger weapons are under development. The most widely used large‐caliber projectiles are 57 mm, 76 mm, and 5 in. The most common 5 in. (12.7 cm) projectile is approximately 26 in. (66 cm) long and weighs 70 lb. (31.7 kg). Large‐caliber projectiles are fired exclusively from turret mounted guns located on ship decks and can be used to fire on surface ships and boats, in defense against missiles and aircraft, and against land‐based targets. Large‐caliber projectiles can be non‐explosive practice munitions or high‐explosive munitions. High‐explosive projectiles can detonate on impact or in the air. Figure 2‐23: Large‐Caliber Projectile Use (5‐inch) Missiles. Missiles are rocket or jet‐propelled munitions used to attack ships, aircraft, and land‐based targets, as well as defend ships against other missiles. Guidance systems and advanced fusing technology ensure that missiles reliably impact on or detonate near their intended target. Missiles are categorized according to their intended target, as described below, and can be further classified according to NEW. Rockets are included within the category of missiles. 2‐30 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing •
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Anti‐Air Missiles. Anti‐air missiles are fired from aircraft and ships against enemy aircraft and incoming missiles (Figure 2‐24). Anti‐air missiles are configured to explode near, or on impact with, their intended target. Missiles are the primary ship‐based defense against incoming missiles. Figure 2‐24: Rolling Airframe Missile (left), Air‐to‐Air Missile (right) •
Anti‐Surface Missiles. Anti‐surface missiles are fired from aircraft, ships, and submarines against surface ships (Figure 2‐25). Anti‐surface missiles are typically configured to detonate on impact. Figure 2‐25: Anti‐Surface Missile Fired from MH‐60 Helicopter •
Strike Missiles. Strike missiles are fired from aircraft, ships, and submarines against land‐based targets. Strike missiles are typically configured to detonate on impact, or near their intended target. The AGM‐88 High‐speed Anti‐Radiation Missile, which is used to destroy enemy radar sites, is an example of a strike missile that is used during at‐sea training, and is fired at a sea‐borne target that replicates a land‐based radar site. 2‐31 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Bombs. Bombs are unpowered munitions dropped from aircraft on land and water targets. The majority of bombs used during training and testing in the Study Area are non‐explosive. However, explosive munitions are occasionally used for proficiency inspections and testing requirements. Bombs are in two categories: general‐purpose bombs and subscale practice bombs. Similar to missiles, bombs are further classified according to the NEW of the bomb. •
General Purpose Bombs. General‐purpose bombs (Figure 2‐26) consist of precision‐guided and unguided full‐scale bombs, ranging in size from 250 to 2,000 lb. (113 to 907 kg). Common bomb nomenclature used includes MK 80 series, which is the Navy’s standard model; Guided Bomb Units and Joint Direct Attack Munitions, which are precision–guided (including laser‐guided) bombs; and the Joint Standoff weapon, which is a long range “glider” precision weapon. Figure 2‐26: F/A‐18 Bomb Release (Left) and Loading General Purpose Bombs (Right) •
Subscale Bombs. Subscale bombs (Figure 2‐27) are non‐explosive practice munitions containing a spotting (smoke) charge to aid in scoring the accuracy of hitting the target during training and testing activities. Common subscale bombs are 25 lb. (11.3 kg) and less and are steel‐constructed. Laser guided training rounds are another variation of a subscale practice bomb. They weigh approximately 100 lb. and are cost‐effective non‐explosive weapons used in training aircrew in laser‐guided weapons employment. Figure 2‐27: Subscale Bombs for Training 2‐32 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Other Munitions. There are other munitions and ordnance used in naval at‐sea training and testing events that do not fit into one of the above categories, and are discussed below. • Demolition Charges. Divers place explosive charges in the marine environment during some training and testing activities. These activities may include the use of timed charges, in which the charge is placed, a timer is started, and the charge detonates at the set time. Munitions of up to 60 lb. (27 kg) blocks of Composition 4 (C‐4) plastic explosive with the necessary detonators and cords are used to support mine neutralization, demolition, and other warfare activities. All demolition charges are further classified according to the NEW of the charge. • Anti‐Swimmer Grenades. Maritime security forces use hand grenades to defend against enemy scuba divers. • Torpedoes. Explosive torpedoes are required in some training and testing events. Torpedoes are described as either lightweight or heavyweight and are further categorized according to the NEW. • Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys. Extended Echo Ranging and Improved Extended Echo Ranging systems include sonobuoys that use explosive charges as the active sound source instead of electrically‐produced sounds. 2.3.3
TARGETS
Training and testing require an assortment of realistic and challenging targets. Targets vary from items as simple and ordinary as an empty steel drum, used for small‐caliber weapons training from the deck of a ship, to sophisticated, unmanned aerial drones used in air defense training. For this EFH Assessment, targets are organized by warfare area. •
Anti‐Air Warfare Targets. Anti‐air warfare targets, tow target systems, and aerial targets are used in training and testing events that involve detection, tracking, defending against, and attacking enemy missiles and aircraft. Aerial towed target systems include textile (nylon banner) and rigid (fiberglass shapes) towed targets used for gunnery events. Aerial targets include expendable rocket‐powered missiles and recoverable radio‐controlled drones used for gunnery and missile exercises (Figure 2‐28). Parachute flares are used as air‐to‐air missile targets. Manned high‐performance aircraft may be used as targets—to test ship and aircraft defensive systems and procedures—without the actual firing of munitions. Figure 2‐28: Anti‐Air Warfare Targets 2‐33 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing •
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Anti‐Surface Warfare Targets. Stationary and towed targets are used as anti‐surface warfare targets during gunnery events. Targets include floating steel drums, inflatable shapes or target balloons (e.g., Killer Tomato™, see Figure 2‐29), fiberglass catamarans, and towed sleds. Remote‐controlled, high‐speed targets, such as jet skis and motorboats, are also used (Figure 2‐30). Figure 2‐29: Deploying a “Killer TomatoTM” Floating Target Figure 2‐30: Ship Deployable Surface Target (Left) and High‐Speed Maneuverable Seaborne Target (Right) 2‐34 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing •
2.3.4
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Anti‐Submarine Warfare Targets. Anti‐submarine warfare uses multiple types of targets including the following: o Submarines. Submarines may act as tracking and detection targets during training and testing events. o Motorized Autonomous Targets. Motorized autonomous targets simulate the acoustic and magnetic characteristics of a submarine, providing realism for exercises when a submarine is not available. These mobile targets resemble torpedoes, with some models designed for recovery and reuse, while other models are expendable. o Stationary Artificial Targets. Stationary targets either resemble submarine hulls or are simulated systems with acoustic properties of enemy submarines. These targets either rest on the sea floor or are suspended at varying depths in the water column. DEFENSIVE COUNTERMEASURES
Naval forces depend on effective defensive countermeasures to protect against missile and torpedo attack. Defensive countermeasures are devices designed to confuse, distract, and confound precision‐guided munitions. Defensive countermeasures are in three basic categories: •
•
•
2.3.5
Chaff. Chaff consists of reflective, aluminum‐coated glass fibers used to obscure ships and aircraft from radar guided systems. Chaff fibers, which are stored in canisters, are either dispensed from aircraft or fired into the air from the decks of surface ships when an attack is imminent. The glass fibers create a radar cloud which acts to mask the position of the ship or aircraft. Flares. Flares are pyrotechnic devices used to defend against heat‐seeking missiles, where the missile seeks out the heat signature from the flare rather than the aircraft's engines. Similar to chaff, flares are also dispensed from aircraft and fired from ships. Acoustic Countermeasures. Acoustic countermeasures are described above in Section 2.3.1.2, Sonar Systems. MINE WARFARE SYSTEMS
Mine warfare systems are in two broad categories: mine detection and mine neutralization. Mine Detection Systems. Mine detection systems are used to locate, classify, and map suspected mines. Once located, the mines can either be neutralized or avoided. These systems are specialized to either locate mines on the surface, in the water column, or on the sea floor. •
Towed or Hull‐Mounted Mine Detection Systems. These detection systems use acoustic and laser or video sensors to locate and classify suspect mines (Figure 2‐31). Helicopters, ships, and unmanned vehicles are used for towed systems, which can rapidly assess large areas. 2‐35 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 2‐31: Towed Mine Detection System •
•
Unmanned/Remotely Operated Vehicles. These vehicles use acoustic and video or lasers to locate and classify mines. Unmanned/remotely operated vehicles provide mine warfare capabilities in nearshore littoral areas, surf zones, ports, and channels. Airborne Laser Mine Detection Systems. Airborne laser detection systems work in concert with neutralization systems (Figure 2‐32). The detection system initially locates mines and a neutralization system is then used to relocate and neutralize the mine. Figure 2‐32: Airborne Laser Mine Detection System in Operation •
Marine Mammal System. Navy personnel and Navy marine mammals work together to detect specified underwater objects. The Navy deploys trained bottlenose dolphins and California sea lions as part of the marine mammal mine‐hunting and object‐recovery system. 2‐36 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Mine Neutralization Systems. These systems disrupt, disable, or detonate mines to clear ports and shipping lanes, as well as littoral, surf, and beach areas in support of naval amphibious operations. Mine neutralization systems can clear individual mines or a large number of mines quickly. •
Towed Influence Mine Sweep Systems. These systems use towed equipment that mimic a particular ship’s magnetic and acoustic signature triggering the mine and causing it to explode (Figure 2‐33). Figure 2‐33: Organic and Surface Influence Sweep •
•
•
•
2.3.6
Towed Mechanical Mine Sweeping Systems. These systems tow a sweep wire to snag the line that attaches a moored mine to its anchor and then uses a series of cables and cutters to sever those lines. Once these lines are cut, the mines float to the surface where Sailors can neutralize the mines. Unmanned/Remotely Operated Mine Neutralization Systems. Surface ships and helicopters operate these systems, which place explosive charges near or directly against mines to destroy the mine (Figure 2‐34). Projectiles. Small‐ and medium‐caliber projectiles, fired from surface ships or hovering helicopters, are used to neutralize floating and near‐surface mine. Diver Emplaced Explosive Charges. Operating from small craft, divers emplace explosive charges near or on mines to destroy the mine or disrupt its ability to function. MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIALS
Navy training and testing events may introduce or expend various items, such as non‐explosive munitions and targets into the marine environment, as a direct result of using these items for their intended purpose. In addition to the items described below, some accessory materials—related to the carriage or release of these items—may be released. These materials, referred to as military expended 2‐37 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment materials, are not recovered, and potentially result in environmental impacts that are analyzed in detail in Chapter 4 of this EFH Assessment. Figure 2‐34: Airborne Mine Neutralization System Military expended materials analyzed in this document include, but are not limited to, the following: •
•
•
•
•
•
Sonobuoys. Sonobuoys consist of parachutes and the sonobuoys themselves. Torpedo Launch Accessories. Torpedoes are usually recovered; however, materials such as parachutes used with air‐dropped torpedoes, guidance wire used with submarine‐launched torpedoes, and ballast weights are expended. Explosive filled torpedoes expend torpedo fragments. Projectiles and Bombs. Projectiles, bombs, or fragments from explosive projectiles and bombs are expended during training and testing exercises. These items are primarily constructed of lead (most small‐caliber projectiles) or steel (medium‐ and large‐caliber projectiles and all bombs). Missiles and Rockets. Non‐explosive missiles and missile fragments from explosive missile are expended during training and testing events. Propellant, and any explosive material involved, is consumed during firing and detonation. Rockets are similar to missiles and both non‐explosive and fragments may be expended. Countermeasures. Countermeasures (acoustic, chaff, flares) are expended as a result of training exercises, with the exception of towed acoustic countermeasures. Targets. Some targets are designed to be expended; other targets, such as aerial drones and remote‐controlled boats, are recovered for re‐use. Targets struck with ordnance will result in target fragments. 2‐38 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 2.3.7
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment CLASSIFICATION OF ACOUSTIC AND EXPLOSIVE SOURCES
In order to better organize and facilitate the analysis of approximately 300 individual sources of underwater acoustic sound or explosive energy, a series of source classifications, or source bins, were developed. The use of source classification bins provides the following benefits: •
•
•
•
•
provides the ability for new sensors or munitions to be covered under existing regulatory authorizations, as long as those sources fall within the parameters of a “bin”; simplifies the source utilization data collection and reporting requirements anticipated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act; ensures a conservative approach to all impacts estimates, , including the impacts to EFH as all sources within a given class are modeled as the loudest source (lowest frequency, highest source level, longest duty cycle, or largest NEW) within that bin; which allows analysis to be conducted in a more efficient manner, without any compromise of analytical results; and provides a framework to support the reallocation of source usage (hours/explosives) between different source bins, as long as the total numbers of takes remain within the overall analyzed and authorized limits. For the EFH analysis, the bins ensures that the impacts would be fully captured. This flexibility is required to support evolving Navy training and testing requirements, which are linked to real world events. There are two primary types of source classes: impulsive and non‐impulsive. A description of each source classification is provided in Table 2‐1 and Table 2‐2. Impulsive bins are based on the NEW of the munitions or explosive devices or the source level for air and water guns. Non‐impulsive acoustic sources are grouped into bins based on the frequency, 3 source level, 4 and when warranted, the application in which the source would be used. The following factors further describe the considerations associated with the development of non‐impulsive source bins: •
Frequency of the non‐impulsive source: o Low‐frequency sources operate below 1 kHz o Mid‐frequency sources operate at and above 1 kHz, up to and including 10 kHz o High‐frequency sources operate above 10 kHz, up to and including 100 kHz o Very high‐frequency sources operate above 100 kHz but below 200 kHz •
Source level of the non‐impulsive source: o Greater than 160 decibels (dB), but less than 180 dB o Equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB o Greater than 200 dB •
Application in which the source would be used: o How a sensor is employed supports how the sensor’s acoustic emissions are analyzed. o Factors considered include pulse length (time source is on); beam pattern (whether sound is emitted as a narrow, focused beam or, as with most explosives, in all 3
Bins are based on the typical center frequency of the source. Although harmonics may be present, those harmonics would be several dB lower than the primary frequency. 4
Source decibel levels are expressed in terms of sound pressure level (SPL) and are values given in decibels (dB) referenced to one micropascal (µPa) at one meter. 2‐39 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment directions); and duty cycle (how often or how many times a transmission occurs in a given time period during an event). Table 2‐1: Non‐impulsive Acoustic Source Classes Analyzed Source Class Category
Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that
produce low-frequency (less than 1
kHz) signals
Source
Class
(Bin)
LF4
Description
Low-frequency sources equal to 180 dB and up to 200
dB
Low-frequency sources less than 180 dB
LF5
LF6
Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and
non-tactical sources that produce midfrequency (1 to 10 kHz) signals
MF1K
Low-frequency sonars currently in development (e.g.,
anti-submarine warfare sonars associated with the
Littoral Combat Ship)
Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/SQS-53C
and AN/SQS-60)
Kingfisher mode associated with MF1 sonars
MF2
Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/SQS-56)
MF2K
Kingfisher mode associated with MF2 sonars
MF3
Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ-10)
MF4
MF5
Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars (e.g., AN/AQS-22
and AN/AQS-13)
Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., DICASS)
MF6
Active underwater sound signal devices (e.g., MK 84)
MF8
MF12
Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise
binned
Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not
otherwise binned
Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180
dB) not otherwise binned
Hull-mounted surface ship sonars with an active duty
cycle greater than 80%
High duty cycle – variable depth sonar
HF1
Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., AN/BQQ-10)
HF2
High Frequency Marine Mammal Monitoring System
HF3
Other hull-mounted submarine sonars (classified)
HF4
Mine detection, classification, and neutralization sonar
(e.g., AN/SQS-20)
Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise
binned
Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) not
otherwise binned
Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180
dB) not otherwise binned
Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., AN/SQS-61)
MF1
MF9
MF10
MF11
High-Frequency (HF) and Very
High-Frequency (VHF): Tactical and
non-tactical sources that produce
high-frequency (greater than 10 kHz
but less than 200 kHz) signals
HF5
HF6
HF7
HF8
2‐40 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2.3‐1: Non‐impulsive Acoustic Source Classes Analyzed (continued) Source Class Category
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW):
Tactical sources such as active
sonobuoys and acoustic
countermeasures systems used during
the conduct of anti-submarine warfare
training and testing activities
Source
Class
(Bin)
ASW1
Description
Mid-frequency Deep Water Active Distributed System
(DWADS)
Mid-frequency Multistatic Active Coherent sonobuoy
(e.g., AN/SSQ-125)
Mid-frequency towed active acoustic countermeasure
systems (e.g., AN/SLQ-25)
Mid-frequency expendable active acoustic device
countermeasures (e.g., MK 3)
Lightweight torpedo (e.g., MK 46, MK 54, or Surface
Ship Defense System)
Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48)
ASW2
ASW3
ASW4
Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes
associated with the active acoustic
signals produced by torpedoes
TORP1
Doppler Sonars (DS): Sonars that use
the Doppler effect to aid in navigation
or collect oceanographic information
DS1
Low-frequency Doppler sonar (e.g., Webb
Tomography Source)
Forward Looking Sonar (FLS):
Forward or upward looking object
avoidance sonars
Acoustic Modems (M): Systems used
to transmit data acoustically through
the water
Swimmer Detection Sonars (SD):
Systems used to detect divers and
submerged swimmers
Airguns (AG): Underwater airguns are
used during swimmer defense and
diver deterrent training and testing
activities
Synthetic Aperture Sonars (SAS):
Sonars in which active acoustic signals
are post-processed to form highresolution images of the seafloor
FLS2 –
FLS3
High-frequency sources with short pulse lengths,
narrow beam widths, and focused beam patterns used
for navigation and safety of ship.
Mid-frequency acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB)
TORP2
M3
SD1 – SD2
AG
High-frequency sources with short pulse lengths, used
for the detection of swimmers and other objects for the
purpose of port security.
Up to 60 cubic inch (in.3) airguns (e.g., Sercel Mini-G)
SAS1
MF SAS systems
SAS2
HF SAS systems
SAS3
VHF SAS systems
2‐41 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐2: Explosive Source Classes Analyzed Source Class
(Bin)
Representative Munitions
Net Explosive Weight1 (lb.)
E1
Medium-caliber projectiles
0.1 to 0.25
E2
Medium-caliber projectiles
0.26 to 0.5
E3
Large-caliber projectiles
>0.5 to 2.5
E4
Improved extended echo ranging sonobuoy
>2.5 to 5.0
E5
5 in. projectiles
>5 to 10
E6
15 lb. shaped charge
>10 to 20
E7
40 demo block/shaped charge
>20 to 60
E8
250 lb. bomb
>60 to 100
E9
500 lb. bomb
>100 to 250
E10
1,000 lb. bomb
>250 to 500
E11
650 lb. mine
>500 to 650
E12
2,000 lb. bomb
>650 to 1,000
E13
1,200 lb. HBX charge
>1,000 to 1,740
1
Net Explosive Weight refers to the amount of explosives; the actual weight of a munition may be larger due to other
components
2.4
PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
The Navy has been conducting military readiness activities in the Study Area for decades. The tempo and types of training and testing activities have fluctuated because of the introduction of new technologies, the evolving nature of international events, advances in warfighting doctrine and procedures, and force structure (organization of ships, weapons, and Sailors) changes. Such developments influenced the frequency, duration, intensity, and location of required training and testing activities. As discussed in Chapter 1, training and testing activities were analyzed in the Tactical Theater Training Assessment Program Phase I documents, specifically in the environmental planning documents for HRC, SOCAL, and SSTC. This EFH Assessment accounts for those factors that cause training and testing fluctuations and has refined its proposed activities in two ways. First, training and testing activities have evolved to meet changes to military readiness requirements. Second, this EFH Assessment includes additional geographic areas where training and testing activities historically occur. 2.4.1
HAWAII-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRAINING AND TESTING PROPOSED TRAINING ACTIVITIES
The training activities proposed by the Navy are described in Table 2‐3. The table is organized according to primary mission areas and includes the activity name and a short description. Appendix A (Navy Activities Descriptions) of the EIS/OEIS has more detailed descriptions of the activities. 2‐42 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐3: Study Area Typical Training Activities Activity Name
Activity Description
Anti-Air Warfare (AAW)
Air Combat Maneuver (ACM)
Aircrews engage in flight maneuvers designed to gain a tactical
advantage during combat.
Air Defense Exercise (ADEX)
Aircrew and ship crews conduct defensive measures against
threat aircraft or missiles.
Gunnery Exercise (Air-to-Air)
(GUNEX [A-A])
Aircrews defend against threat aircraft with cannons (machine
gun).
Missile Exercise (Air-to-Air)
(MISSILEX [A-A])
Aircrews defend against threat aircraft with missiles.
Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Air)
(GUNEX [S-A])
Surface ship crews defend against threat aircraft or missiles with
guns.
Missile Exercise (Surface-to-Air)
(MISSILEX [S-A])
Surface ship crews defend against threat missiles and aircraft
with missiles.
Missile Exercise – Man-portable Air
Defense System
(MISSILEX – MANPADS)
Marines employ the man-portable air defense systems
(MANPADS), a shoulder fired surface to air missile, against threat
missiles or aircraft.
Amphibious Warfare (AMW)
Fire Support Exercise – Land based
target
(FIREX [Land])
Surface ship crews use large-caliber guns to fire on land-based
targets in support of forces ashore.
Fire Support Exercise – at Sea
(FIREX at Sea)
Surface ship crews use large-caliber guns to support forces
ashore; however, the land target is simulated at sea. Rounds
impact the water and are scored by passive acoustic
hydrophones located at or near the target area.
Amphibious Assault
Forces move ashore from ships at sea for the immediate
execution of inland objectives.
Amphibious Assault – Battalion
Landing
Similar to amphibious assault, but with a much larger force and of
longer duration.
Amphibious Raid
Small unit forces move swiftly from ships at sea for a specific
short-term mission. Raids are quick operations with as few
Marines as possible.
Expeditionary Fires
Exercise/Supporting Arms
Coordination Exercise
(EFEX/SACEX)
Marine Corps field training in integration of close air support,
naval gunfire, artillery, and mortars.
Humanitarian Assistance Operations
Military units evacuate noncombatants from hostile or unsafe
areas or provide humanitarian assistance in times of disaster.
2‐43 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐3: Study Area Typical Training Activities (continued) Activity Name
Activity Description
Strike Warfare (STW) 5
Bombing Exercise Air-to-Ground
(BOMBEX A-G)
Fixed-wing aircraft drop non-explosive bombs against a land
target.
Gunnery Exercise Air-to-Ground
(GUNEX A-G)
Helicopter crews fire guns at stationary land targets.
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)
Maritime Security Operations (MSO)
Helicopter and surface ship crews conduct a suite of Maritime
Security Operations (e.g., Vessel Search, Board, and Seizure;
Maritime Interdiction Operations; Force Protection; and AntiPiracy Operation).
Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface
(Ship)
(GUNEX-S-S [Ship])
Ship crews engage surface targets with ship's small-, medium-,
and large-caliber guns.
Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface
(Boat)
(GUNEX-S-S [Boat])
Small boat crews engage surface targets with small- and mediumcaliber weapons.
Missile Exercise (Surface-to-Surface)
(MISSILEX [S-S])
Surface ship crews defend against threat missiles and other
surface ships with missiles.
Gunnery Exercise (Air-to-Surface)
(GUNEX [A-S])
Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews, including embarked
personnel, use small- and medium-caliber guns to engage
surface targets.
Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface)
(MISSILEX [A-S])
Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire both precision-guided
missiles and unguided rockets against surface targets.
Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface)
(BOMBEX [A-S])
Fixed-wing aircrews deliver bombs against surface targets.
Laser Targeting
Fixed-winged, helicopter, and ship crews illuminate enemy targets
with lasers.
Sinking Exercise (SINKEX)
Aircraft, ship, and submarine crews deliver ordnance on a
seaborne target, usually a deactivated ship, which is deliberately
sunk using multiple weapon systems.
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise
– Submarine
(TRACKEX/TORPEX – Sub)
Submarine crews search, detect, and track submarines and
surface ships. Exercise torpedoes may be used during this event.
Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise
– Surface
(TRACKEX/TORPEX – Surface)
Surface ship crews search, track, and detect submarines.
Exercise torpedoes may be used during this event.
5
Only the in‐water impacts of strike warfare activities are analyzed in this EFH Assessment. Land impacts were analyzed in previous documents. 2‐44 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐3: Study Area Typical Training Activities (continued) Activity Name
Activity Description
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) (continued)
Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise
– Helicopter
(TRACKEX/TORPEX – Helo)
Helicopter crews search, track, and detect submarines. Exercise
torpedoes may be used during this event.
Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise
– Maritime Patrol Aircraft
(TRACKEX/TORPEX – Maritime
Patrol Aircraft)
Maritime patrol aircraft crews search, detect, and track
submarines. Recoverable air launched torpedoes may be
employed against submarine targets.
Tracking Exercise – Maritime Patrol
Aircraft Extended Echo Ranging
Sonobuoys
Maritime patrol aircraft crews search, detect and track submarines
using explosive source sonobuoys or multistatic active coherent
system.
Kilo Dip – Helicopter
Helicopter crews briefly deploy their dipping Acoustic Sources to
ensure the system’s operational status.
Submarine Command Course (SCC)
Operations
Train prospective submarine Commanding Officers to operate
against surface, air, and subsurface threats.
Electronic Warfare (EW)
Electronic Warfare Operations (EW
OPS)
Aircraft, surface ship, and submarine crews attempt to control
portions of the electromagnetic spectrum used by enemy systems
to degrade or deny the enemy’s ability to take defensive actions.
Counter Targeting-Flare Exercise
(FLAREX)
Fixed-winged aircraft and helicopters crews defend against an
attack by deploying flares to disrupt threat infrared missile
guidance systems.
Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise
(CHAFFEX)
Surface ships, fixed-winged aircraft, and helicopter crews defend
against an attack by deploying chaff, a radar reflective material,
which disrupt threat targeting and missile guidance radars.
Mine Warfare (MIW)
Mine Countermeasure Exercise –
MCM Sonar-Ship Sonar
Surface ship crews detect and avoid mines while navigating
restricted areas or channels using active sonar.
Mine Countermeasure Exercise –
Surface
(SMCMEX)
MCM-class ship crews detect, locate, identify, and avoid mines
while navigating restricted areas or channels using active sonar.
Mine Neutralization – Explosive
Ordnance Disposal (EOD)
Personnel disable threat mines. Explosive charges may be used.
Mine Countermeasure (MCM) –
Towed Mine Neutralization
Ship crews and helicopter aircrews tow systems (e.g., Organic
and Surface Influence Sweep, MK 104/105) through the water
that are designed to disable and/or trigger mines.
Airborne Mine Countermeasure
(MCM) – Mine Detection
Ship crews and helicopter aircrews detect mines using towed and
laser mine detection systems (e.g., AN/AQS-20, Airborne Laser
Mine Detection System).
Mine Countermeasure (MCM) – Mine
Neutralization
Ship crews or helicopter aircrews disable mines by firing smalland medium-caliber projectiles.
2‐45 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐3: Study Area Typical Training Activities (continued) Activity Name
Activity Description
Mine Warfare (MIW) (continued)
Mine Neutralization – Remotely
Operated Vehicle (ROV)
Helicopter aircrews disable mines using remotely operated
underwater vehicles.
Mine Laying
Fixed-winged aircraft and submarine crews drop/launch non
explosive mine shapes.
Marine Mammal System
Navy personnel and Navy marine mammals work together to
detect and neutralize specified underwater objects.
Shock Wave Generator
Navy divers place a small charge on a simulated underwater
mine.
Surf Zone Test
Detachment/Equipment Test and
Evaluation
Navy personnel test and evaluate the effectiveness of new
detection and neutralization equipment designated for surf
conditions.
Submarine Mine Exercise
Submarine crews practice detecting mines in a designated area.
Maritime Homeland Defense/Security
Mine Countermeasures
Maritime homeland defense/security mine countermeasures are
naval mine warfare activities conducted at various ports and
harbors, in support of maritime homeland defense/security.
Naval Special Warfare (NSW)
Personnel Insertion/Extraction –
Submarine
Military personnel train for covert insertion and extraction into
target areas using submarines.
Personnel Insertion/Extraction – Nonsubmarine
Military personnel train for covert insertion and extraction into
target areas using helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft (insertion only),
or small boats.
Underwater Demolition Multiple
Charge – Mat Weave and Obstacle
Loading
Navy personnel train to construct, place, and safely detonate
multiple charges laid in a pattern for underwater obstacle
clearance.
Underwater Demolition
Qualification/Certification
Navy divers conduct training and certification in placing
underwater demolition charges.
Major Training Events
Composite Training Unit Exercise
(COMPTUEX)
Intermediate level exercise designed to create a cohesive Strike
Group prior to deployment or Joint Task Force Exercise. Typically
seven surface ships, helicopters, maritime patrol aircraft, two
submarines, and various unmanned vehicles. Marine mammal
systems may be used during a COMPTUEX.
Joint Task Force Exercise
(JTFEX)/Sustainment Exercise
(SUSTAINEX)
Final fleet exercise prior to deployment of the Strike Group.
Serves as a ready-to-deploy certification for all units involved.
Typically nine surface ships, helicopters, maritime patrol aircraft,
two submarines, and various unmanned vehicles.
2‐46 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐3: Study Area Typical Training Activities (continued) Activity Name
Activity Description
Major Training Events (continued)
Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise
A biennial multinational training exercise in which navies from
Pacific Rim nations and the United Kingdom assemble in Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii to conduct training throughout the Hawaiian
Islands in a number of warfare areas. Marine mammal systems
may be used during a RIMPAC. Components of RIMPAC such as
certain mine warfare training may be conducted in the SOCAL
Range Complex.
Multi-Strike Group Exercise
A 10-day exercise in which up to three strike groups would
conduct training exercises simultaneously.
Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare
Course
(IAC)
Multiple ships, aircraft and submarines integrate the use of their
sensors, including sonobuoys, to search, detect, and track threat
submarines. IAC is an intermediate level training event and can
occur in conjunction with other major exercises.
Group Sail
Multiple ships and helicopters integrate the use of sensors,
including sonobuoys, to search, detect, and track a threat
submarine. Group sails are not dedicated ASW events and
involve multiple warfare areas.
Undersea Warfare Exercise
(USWEX)
Elements of ASW Tracking Exercises combine in this exercise of
multiple air, surface and subsurface units, over a period of several
days. Sonobuoys released from aircraft. Active and passive sonar
used.
Ship ASW Readiness and Evaluation
Measuring (SHAREM)
This exercise will typically involve multiple ships, submarines, and
aircraft in several coordinated events over a period of a week or
less. The Navy uses this exercise to collect and analyze highquality data to quantitatively “assess” surface ship ASW readiness
and effectiveness.
Other Training Activities
Precision Anchoring
Releasing of anchors in designated locations.
Small Boat Attack
For this activity, one or two small boats or personal watercraft
conduct attack activities on units afloat.
Offshore Petroleum Discharge
System (OPDS)
This activity trains personnel in the transfer of petroleum (though
only sea water is used during training) from ship to shore.
Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS)
A temporary pier is constructed off the beach. Supporting pilings
are driven into the sand and then later removed.
Submarine Navigation
Submarine crews locate underwater objects and ships while
transiting out of port.
Submarine Under Ice Certification
Submarine crews train to operate under ice. Ice conditions are
simulated during training and certification events.
Salvage Operations
Navy divers train to tow disabled ships, repair damaged ships,
remove sunken ships, and conduct deep ocean recovery.
Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance
Pierside and at-sea maintenance of sonar systems.
Submarine Sonar Maintenance
Pierside and at-sea maintenance of sonar systems
2‐47 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 2.4.2
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment PROPOSED TESTING ACTIVITIES
The Navy’s research and acquisition community engages in a broad spectrum of testing activities in support of the fleet. These activities include, but are not limited to, basic and applied scientific research and technology development; testing, evaluation, and maintenance of systems (e.g., missiles, radar, and sonar), and platforms (e.g., surface ships, submarines, and aircraft); and acquisition of systems and platforms to support Navy missions and give a technological edge over adversaries. The individual commands within the research and acquisition community included in this EFH Assessment are Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Sea Systems Command, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, the Office of Naval Research, and the Naval Research Laboratory. The Navy operates in an ever‐changing strategic, tactical, funding and time‐constrained environment. Testing activities occur in response to emerging science or fleet operational needs. For example, future Navy experiments to develop a better understanding of ocean currents may be designed based on advancements made by non‐government researchers not yet published in the scientific literature. Similarly, future but yet unknown Navy operations within a specific geographic area may require development of modified Navy assets to address local conditions. Such modifications must be tested in the field to ensure they meet fleet needs and requirements. Accordingly, generic descriptions of some of these activities are the best that can be articulated in a long‐term, comprehensive document, like this EFH Assessment. Some testing activities are similar to training activities conducted by the fleet. For example, both the fleet and the research and acquisition community fire torpedoes. While the firing of a torpedo might look identical to an observer, the difference is in the purpose of the firing. The fleet might fire the torpedo to practice the procedures for such a firing, whereas the research and acquisition community might be assessing a new torpedo guidance technology or to ensure that the torpedo meets performance specifications and operational requirements. These differences may result in different analysis and potential mitigations for the activity. 2.4.2.1
Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities
Naval Air Systems Command testing activities generally fall in the primary mission areas used by the fleets. Naval Air Systems Command activities include, but are not limited to, the testing of new aircraft platforms, weapons, and systems before those platforms, weapons and systems are delivered to the fleet. In addition to the testing of new platforms, weapons, and systems, Naval Air Systems Command also conducts lot acceptance testing of weapons and systems, such as sonobuoys. The majority of testing and development activities conducted by Naval Air Systems Command are similar to fleet training activities, and many platforms (e.g., the MH‐60 helicopter) and systems (e.g., the projectile‐based mine clearance system) currently being tested are already being used by the fleet or will ultimately be integrated into fleet training activities. However, some testing and development may be conducted in different locations and in a different manner than the fleet and therefore, though the potential environmental effects may be the same, the analysis for those events may differ. Training with systems and platforms delivered to the fleet within the timeframe of this document are analyzed in the training sections of this EFH Assessment. This section only addresses Naval Air Systems Command’s testing activities, which are described in Table 2‐4. 2‐48 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐4: Study Area Typical Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities Activity Name
Activity Description
Anti-Air Warfare (AAW)
Air Combat Maneuver
(ACM) Test
This event is identical to the air combat maneuver training event. Test event
involving two or more aircraft, each engaged in continuous proactive and reactive
changes in aircraft attitude, altitude, and airspeed. No weapons are fired during
air combat maneuver tests activities.
Air Platform/Vehicle
Test
Testing performed to quantify the flying qualities, handling, airworthiness,
stability, controllability, and integrity of an air platform or vehicle. No weapons are
released during an air platform/vehicle test. In-flight refueling capabilities are
tested.
Air Platform Weapons
Integration Test
Testing performed to quantify the compatibility of weapons with the aircraft from
which they would be launched or released. Mostly non-explosive weapons or
shapes are used, but some tests may require the use of high explosive weapons.
Intelligence,
Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Test
Test to evaluate communications capabilities of fixed-wing and rotary wing
aircraft, including unmanned systems that can carry cameras, sensors,
communications equipment, or other payloads. New systems are tested at sea to
ensure proper communications between aircraft and ships.
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)
Air-to-Surface Missile
Test
This event is similar to the training event missile exercise (air-to-surface). Test
may involve both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft launching missiles at surface
maritime targets to evaluate the weapon system or as part of another systems
integration test.
Air-to-Surface
Gunnery Test
This event is similar to the training event gunnery exercise air to surface. Strike
fighter and helicopter aircrews evaluate new or enhanced aircraft guns against
surface maritime targets to test that the gun, gun ammunition, or associated
systems meet required specifications or to train aircrew in the operation of a new
or enhanced weapon system.
Rocket Test
Rocket tests evaluate the integration, accuracy, performance, and safe
separation of laser-guided and unguided 2.75 in. rockets fired from a hovering or
forward flying helicopter or from a fixed wing strike aircraft.
Laser Targeting Test
Aircrew use laser targeting devices integrated into aircraft or weapon systems to
evaluate targeting accuracy and precision and to train aircrew in the use of newly
developed or enhanced laser targeting devices. Lasers are designed to illuminate
designated targets for engagement with laser-guided weapons.
Electronic Warfare (EW)
Electronic Systems
Evaluation
Test that evaluates the effectiveness of electronic systems to control, deny, or
monitor critical portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. In general, electronic
warfare testing will assess the performance of three types of electronic warfare
systems: electronic attack, electronic protect, and electronic support.
2‐49 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐4: Study Area Typical Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities (continued) Activity Name
Activity Description
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Torpedo Test
This event is similar to the training event torpedo exercise. The Test evaluates
anti-submarine warfare systems onboard rotary wing and fixed wing aircraft and
the ability to search for, detect, classify, localize, track, and attack a submarine or
similar target at various altitudes .
Kilo Dip
A kilo dip is the operational term used to describe a functional check of a
helicopter deployed dipping sonar system. The sonar system is briefly activated
to ensure all systems are functional. A kilo dip is simply a precursor to more
comprehensive testing.
Sonobuoy Lot
Acceptance Test
Sonobuoys are deployed from surface vessels and aircraft to verify the integrity
and performance of a lot, or group, of sonobuoys in advance of delivery to the
fleet for operational use.
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Tracking Test
– Helicopter
This event is similar to the training event ASW tracking exercise (helicopter). The
test evaluates the sensors and systems used to detect and track submarines and
to ensure that helicopter systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to
specifications.
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Tracking Test
– Maritime Patrol
Aircraft
This event is similar to the training event tracking exercise/torpedo exercise—
maritime patrol aircraft. The test evaluates the sensors and systems used by
maritime patrol aircraft to detect and track submarines and to ensure that aircraft
systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to specifications and meet
operational requirements.
Mine Warfare (MIW)
Airborne Mine
Neutralization System
Test (AMNS)
Airborne mine neutralization tests of the Airborne Mine Neutralization System
evaluate the system’s ability to detect and destroy mines. The Airborne Mine
Neutralization System uses up to four unmanned underwater vehicles equipped
with high-frequency sonar, video cameras, and explosive neutralizers.
Airborne Towed
Minehunting Sonar
System Test
Tests of the Airborne Mine Neutralization System to evaluate the search
capabilities of this towed, mine hunting, detection, and classification system. The
sonar on the Airborne Mine Neutralization System identifies mine-like objects in
the deeper parts of the water column.
Airborne Towed
Minesweeping System
Test
Tests of the OASIS would be conducted by a helicopter to evaluate the
functionality of OASIS and the helicopter at sea. The OASIS is towed from a
forward flying helicopter and works by emitting an electromagnetic field and
mechanically generated underwater sound to simulate the presence of a ship.
The sound and electromagnetic signature cause nearby mines to explode.
Airborne Laser-Based
Mine Detection
System Test –
ALMDS
An airborne mine hunting test of the AN/AES-1 Airborne Laser Mine Detection
System, or "ALMDS” evaluates the system’s ability to detect, classify, and fix the
location of floating and near-surface, moored mines. The system uses a laser to
locate mines and may operate in conjunction with an airborne projectile-based
mine detection system to neutralize mines.
Airborne Projectile –
Based Mine
Clearance System
Test
A helicopter uses a laser-based detection system to search for mines and to fix
mine locations for neutralization with an airborne projectile-based mine clearance
system. The system neutralizes mines by firing a small- or medium-caliber nonexplosive, supercavitating projectile from a hovering helicopter.
2‐50 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐4: Study Area Typical Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities (continued) Activity Name
Activity Description
Other Testing Activities
Test and Evaluation –
Catapult Launch
Tests evaluate the function of aircraft carrier catapults at sea following
enhancements, modifications, or repairs to catapult launch systems. This
includes aircraft catapult launch tests. No weapons or other expendable materials
would be released.
Air Platform Shipboard
Integration Test
Tests evaluate the compatibility of aircraft and aircraft systems with ships and
shipboard systems. Tests involve physical operations and verify and evaluate
communications and tactical data links. This test function also includes an
assessment of carrier-shipboard suitability, and hazards of electromagnetic
radiation to personnel, ordnance, and fuels.
Shipboard Electronic
Systems Evaluation
Tests measure ship antenna radiation patterns and test communication systems
with a variety of aircraft.
Notes: ft. = feet, in. = inch, OASIS = Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep
2.4.2.2
Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Events
Naval Sea Systems Command testing activities (Table 2‐5) are aligned with its mission of new ship construction, life cycle support, and other weapon systems development and testing. Each major category of NAVSEA activities is described below. 2.4.2.2.1
New Ship Construction Activities
Ship construction activities include pierside testing of ship systems, tests to determine how the ship performs at sea (sea trials), and developmental and operational test and evaluation programs for new technologies and systems. Pierside and at‐sea testing of systems aboard a ship may include sonar, acoustic countermeasures, radars, and radio equipment. In this EFH Assessment, pierside testing at Navy contractor shipyards consists only of sonar systems. During sea trials, each new ship propulsion engine is operated at full power and subjected to high‐speed runs and steering tests. At‐sea test firing of shipboard weapon systems, including guns, torpedoes, and missiles, are also conducted. 2.4.2.2.2
Life Cycle Activities
Testing activities are conducted throughout the life of a Navy ship to verify performance and mission capabilities. Sonar system testing occurs pierside during maintenance, repair, and overhaul availabilities, and at sea immediately following most major overhaul periods. A Combat System Ship Qualification Trial is conducted for new ships and for ships that have undergone modification or overhaul of their combat systems. Radar cross signature testing of surface ships is conducted on new vessels and periodically throughout a ship’s life to measure how detectable the ship is to radar. Additionally, electromagnetic measurements of off‐board electromagnetic signature are conducted for submarines, ships, and surface craft periodically. 2‐51 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 2.4.2.2.3
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Other Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities
Numerous test activities and technical evaluations, in support of NAVSEA’s systems development mission, often occur in conjunction with fleet activities within the HSTT Study Area. Tests within this category include, but are not limited to, anti‐surface warfare, anti‐submarine warfare, and mine warfare tests using torpedoes, sonobuoys, and mine detection and neutralization systems. Unique NAVSEA planned testing includes a kinetic energy weapon, which uses electromagnetic energy to propel a round at a target, and alternative electromagnetic or directed energy devices. In addition, areas of potential increased future equipment and systems testing are swimmer detection systems, lasers, new radars, unmanned vehicles, and chemical‐biological detectors. Table 2‐5: Study Area Typical Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities Activity Name
Activity Description
New Ship Construction
Surface
Combatant Sea
Trials
Other Ship
Class Sea
Trials
Mission
Package
Testing
Pierside Sonar
Testing
Tests ship’s sonar systems pierside to ensure proper operation.
Propulsion Testing
Ship is run at high speeds in various formations (e.g., straight-line
and reciprocal paths).
Gun Testing
Gun systems are tested using non-explosive rounds.
Missile Testing
Explosive and non-explosive missiles are fired at target drones to
test the launching system.
Decoy Testing
Includes testing of the MK 36 Decoy Launching system
Surface Warfare
Testing
Ships defend against surface targets with large-caliber guns.
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Testing
Ships demonstrate capability of countermeasure systems and
underwater surveillance and communications systems.
Propulsion Testing
Ship is run at high speeds in various formations (e.g., straight-line
and reciprocal paths). (“Other Ship” indicates class of vessels
without hull-mounted sonar. Example ship classes include LCS,
MLP, and T-AKE.)
Gun Testing –
Small Caliber
Gun systems are tested using non-explosive rounds.
Anti-Submarine
Warfare
Ships and their supporting platforms (e.g., helicopters, unmanned
aerial vehicles) detect, localize, and prosecute submarines.
Surface Warfare
Ships defense against surface targets with small, medium, and
large caliber guns and medium range missiles.
Missile Testing
Non-explosive missiles are fired at target drones to test the
launching system.
Mine
Countermeasures
Ships conduct mine countermeasure operations.
2‐52 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐5: Study Area Typical Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities (continued) Activity Name
Activity Description
New Ship Construction (continued)
Post-Homeporting Testing (all
classes)
Tests all ship systems, including navigation and propulsion
systems.
Life Cycle Activities
Ship Signature Testing
Tests ship and submarine radars and electromagnetic signatures.
Surface Ship Sonar
Testing/Maintenance (in OPAREAs
and Ports)
Pierside and at-sea testing of surface ship systems occurs
periodically following major maintenance periods and for routine
maintenance.
Submarine Sonar
Testing/Maintenance (in OPAREAs
and Ports)
Pierside and at-sea testing of submarine systems occurs
periodically following major maintenance periods and for routine
maintenance.
Combat System
Ship Qualification
Trial (CSSQT)
In-port
Maintenance
Period
Each combat system is tested to ensure they are functioning in a
technically acceptable manner and are operationally ready to
support at-sea Combat System Ship Qualification Trials.
Air Defense (AD)
Tests the ship’s capability to detect, identify, track, and
successfully engage live and simulated targets.
Surface Warfare
(SUW)
Tests shipboard sensors capabilities to detect and track surface
targets, relay the data to the gun weapon system, and engage
targets.
Undersea
Warfare (USW)
Tests ships ability to track and engage undersea targets.
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)/Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Testing
Missile Testing
Missile testing includes various missiles fired from submarines
and surface combatants.
Kinetic Energy Weapon Testing
A kinetic energy weapon uses stored energy released in a burst
to accelerate a non-explosive projectile.
Electronic Warfare Testing
Testing will include radiation of military and commercial radar and
communication systems (or simulators).
Torpedo (Non-explosive) Testing
Air, surface, or submarine crews employ non-explosive torpedoes
against submarines or surface vessels. All torpedoes are
recovered.
Torpedo (Explosive) Testing
Air, surface, or submarine crews employ high-explosive torpedoes
against artificial targets or deactivated ships.
Countermeasure Testing
Various acoustic systems (e.g., towed arrays and surface ship
torpedo defense systems) are employed to detect, localize, track,
and neutralize incoming weapons.
2‐53 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐5: Study Area Typical Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities (continued) Activity Name
Activity Description
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)/Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Testing (continued)
Pierside Sonar Testing
Pierside testing to ensure systems are fully functional in a
controlled pierside environment prior to at-sea test activities.
At-sea Sonar Testing
At-sea testing to ensure systems are fully functional in an open
ocean environment.
Mine Warfare (MIW) Testing
Mine Detection and Classification
Testing
Air, surface, and subsurface vessels detect and classify mines
and mine-like objects.
Mine Countermeasure/Neutralization
Testing
Air, surface, and subsurface vessels neutralize threat mines that
would otherwise restrict passage through an area.
Pierside Systems Health Checks
Mine warfare systems are tested in pierside locations to ensure
acoustic and electromagnetic sensors are fully functional prior to
at-sea test activities.
Shipboard Protection Systems and Swimmer Defense Testing
Pierside Integrated Swimmer Defense
Swimmer defense testing ensures that systems can effectively
detect, characterize, verify, and engage swimmer/diver threats in
harbor environments.
Shipboard Protection Systems
Testing
Loudhailers and small caliber munitions are used to protect a ship
against small boat threats.
Chemical/Biological Simulant Testing
Chemical/biological agent simulants are deployed against surface
ships.
Unmanned Vehicle Testing
Underwater Deployed Unmanned
Aerial System Testing
Unmanned aerial systems are launched by submarines and
special operations forces while submerged.
Unmanned Vehicle Development and
Payload Testing
Vehicle development involves the production and upgrade of new
unmanned platforms on which to attach various payloads used for
different purposes.
Other Testing Activities
Special Warfare
Special warfare includes testing of submersibles capable of
inserting and extracting personnel or payloads into denied areas
from strategic distances.
Acoustic Communications Testing
Acoustic modems, submarines, and surface vessels transmit
signals to communicate.
2.4.2.3
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Testing Events
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) is the information dominance systems command for the U.S. Navy. The mission of SPAWAR is to acquire, develop, deliver and sustain decision superiority for the warfighter at the right time and for the right cost. SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific is the research and development part of SPAWAR focused on developing and transitioning technologies in the area of command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and 2‐54 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment reconnaissance. SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific conducts research, development, test, and evaluation projects to support emerging technologies for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; anti‐terrorism and force protection; mine countermeasures; anti‐submarine warfare; oceanographic research; remote sensing; and communications. These activities include, but are not limited to, the testing of unmanned undersea and surface vehicles, a wide variety of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sensor systems, underwater surveillance technologies, and underwater communications. While Table 2‐6 describes the typical and anticipated Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific test and evaluation activities to be conducted in the Study Area, unforeseen emergent Navy requirements may influence actual testing activities. Activities that would occur under Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command testing events have been identified to the extent practicable throughout this EFH Assessment. Table 2‐6: Study Area Typical Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Testing Activities Activity Name
Activity Description
SPAWAR Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Autonomous Undersea Vehicle
(AUV) Anti-Terrorism/Force
Protection (AT/FP) Mine
Countermeasures
Autonomous undersea vehicle shallow water mine countermeasure testing
is focused on the testing of unmanned undersea vehicles with mine hunting
sensors in marine environments in and around rocky outcroppings. Antiterrorism/force protection mine countermeasures testing is focused on mine
countermeasure missions in confined areas between piers and pilings.
Autonomous Undersea Vehicle
(AUV) Underwater
Communications
This testing is focused on providing two-way networked communications
below the ocean surface while maintaining mission profile.
Fixed System Underwater
Communications
Fixed underwater communications systems testing is focused on testing
stationary or free floating equipment that provides two-way networked
communications below the ocean surface while maintaining mission profile.
Autonomous Undersea Vehicle
(AUV) Autonomous
Oceanographic Research and
Meteorology and Oceanography
(METOC)
The research is composed of ocean gliders and autonomous undersea
vehicles. Gliders are portable, long-endurance buoyancy driven vehicles
that provide a means to sample and characterize ocean water properties.
Autonomous undersea vehicles are larger, shorter endurance vehicles.
Fixed Autonomous
Oceanographic Research and
Meteorology and Oceanography
(METOC)
The goal of these systems is to develop, integrate, and demonstrate
deployable autonomous undersea technologies that improve the Navy’s
capability to conduct effective anti-submarine warfare and intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance operations in littoral waters.
Passive Mobile Intelligence,
Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Sensor Systems
These systems use passive arrays hosted by surface and subsurface
vehicles and vessels for conducting submarine detection and tracking
experiments and demonstrations.
Fixed Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance Sensor
Systems
These systems use stationary fixed arrays for conducting submarine
detection and tracking experiments and demonstrations.
Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection
(AT/FP) Fixed Sensor Systems
These systems use stationary fixed arrays for providing protection of Navy
assets from underwater threats.
Notes: SPAWAR = Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command
2‐55 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 2.4.2.4
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Office of Naval Research and Naval Research Laboratory Testing Events
As the Navy’s Science and Technology provider, Office of Naval Research and the Naval Research Laboratory provide technology solutions for Navy and Marine Corps training and operational needs. The Office of Naval Research’s mission, defined by law, is to plan, foster, and encourage scientific research in recognition of its paramount importance as related to the maintenance of future naval power, and the preservation of national security. Further, the Office of Naval Research manages the Navy’s basic, applied, and advanced research to foster transition from science and technology to higher levels of research, development, test and evaluation. The Ocean Battlespace Sensing Department explores science and technology in the areas of oceanographic and meteorological observations, modeling, and prediction in the battlespace environment; submarine detection and classification (anti‐submarine warfare); and mine warfare applications for detecting and neutralizing mines in both the ocean and littoral environment. The Office of Naval Research events include: research, development, test, and evaluation activities; surface processes acoustic communications experiments; shallow water acoustic communications experiments; sediment acoustics experiments; shallow water acoustic propagation experiments; and long range acoustic propagation experiments. Office of Naval Research testing is shown in Table 2‐7; however, because of the unpredictable nature of scientific discoveries, this description is provided as an example only. The Office of Naval Research will strive to predict acoustic activity and account for that activity within the classifications described in Section 2.3.1. Table 2‐7: Study Area Typical Office of Naval Research Testing Activity Activity Name
Activity Description
Office of Naval Research Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation
Kauai Acoustic Communications
Experiment
(Coastal)
2.5
The primary purpose of the Kauai Acoustic Communications
Experiment is to collect acoustic and environmental data
appropriate for studying the coupling of oceanography, acoustics,
and underwater communications.
PROPOSED ACTION
Tables 2‐8 to 2‐12 list all of the training and testing activities that are a part of the Proposed Action as well as the location they will occur, the number of annual events, and the number and type of ordnance that will be used. 2‐56 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐8: Proposed Training Activities Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
814
None
HRC: Warning Areas: 188,
189, 190, 192, 193, 194
3,970
None
SOCAL: Warning Area 291
(TMAs)
185
None
HRC: Warning Areas: 188,
189, 190, 192, 193, 194
550
None
SOCAL: Warning Area 291
Gunnery Exercise (Air-to-Air)
– Medium-caliber
(GUNEX [A-A]) – Mediumcaliber
3
3,000 rounds
SOCAL: Warning Area 291
Missile Exercise (Air-to-Air)
(MISSILEX [A-A])
27
105 missiles
(53 HE)
HRC: Warning Area 188
25
52 missiles
(26 HE)
SOCAL: Warning Area 291,
SOAR, FLETA Hot, MISRs
50
400 HE rounds
HRC: Warning Areas 188,
192, Mela South
160
1,300 rounds
SOCAL: Warning Area 291
70
140,000 rounds
HRC: Warning Areas 188,
192, Mela South
190
380,000 rounds
SOCAL: Warning Area 291
30
30 HE missiles
HRC: Warning Area 188
20
20 HE missiles
SOCAL: Warning Area 291
4
68 HE missiles
SOCAL: SHOBA
52
8,500 rounds (all
rounds land ashore)
SOCAL: SHOBA
Anti-Air Warfare
Air Combat Maneuver (ACM)
Air Defense Exercise (ADEX)
Gunnery Exercise (Surface-toAir) – Large-caliber
(GUNEX [S-A]) – Largecaliber
Gunnery Exercise (Surface-toAir) – Medium-caliber
(GUNEX [S-A]) – Mediumcaliber
Missile Exercise (Surface-toAir)
(MISSILEX [S-A])
Missile Exercise – Manportable Air Defense System
(MISSILEX – MANPADS)
Amphibious Warfare (AMW)
Fire Support Exercise – Land
based target
(FIREX [Land])
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California [Range Complex], TMA = Tactical
Maneuvering Area, HE = High Explosive, SOAR = Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range,
FLETA = Fleet Training Area, MISR = Missile Range, SHOBA = Shore Bombardment Area
2‐57 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐8: Proposed Training Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
12
1,000 NEPM rounds;
840 HE rounds
HRC: Warning Area-188
(including BSURE,
BARSTUR)
12
None
HRC-PMRF (Main Base),
MCBH, MCTAB
18
None
SSTC Boat Lanes 11-14
2
None
SOCAL: SHOBA, SWTR
Nearshore, Eel Cove, West
Cove, Wilson Cove
2,342
None
SOCAL: West, Cove,
Horse Beach Cove, NW
Harbor, CPAAA
84
None
SSTC Boat Lanes 1-8, 1114; Bravo, Delta I, II, III,
Echo, Fox, Golf, Hotel
Expeditionary Fires
Exercise/Supporting Arms
Coordination Exercise
(EFEX/SACEX)
8
1,045 rounds;
all landing ashore
SOCAL: San Clemente
Island, SHOBA, SWTR
Nearshore
Humanitarian Assistance
Operations
2
None
HRC-PMRF (Main Base),
Niihau, MCBH, MCTAB
60
275 bombs
(NEPM)
HRC: Kaula Island
307
60,000 small- and
medium-caliber
rounds
HRC: Kaula Island
70
None
Hawaii OPAREA
150
None
SOCAL: W-291, OPAREA
3803, SOAR
42
None
SSTC Boat Lanes 1-10
Amphibious Warfare (AMW) (continued)
Fire Support Exercise – at
Sea
(FIREX at Sea)
Amphibious Assault
Amphibious Assault –
Battalion Landing
Amphibious Raid
Strike Warfare (STW)
Bombing Exercise
(Air-to-Ground) (BOMBEX
A-G)
Gunnery Exercise
(Air-to-Ground) (GUNEX A-G)
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)
Maritime Security Operations
(MSO)
Notes: NEPM = Non-explosive Practice Munition, SOCAL = Southern California (Range Complex),
SHOBA = Shore Bombardment Area, HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, PMRF = Pacific Missile Range
Facility, BSURE = Barking Sands Underwater Range Extension, BARSTUR = Barking Sands Tactical
Underwater Range, MCBH = Marine Corps Base Hawaii, MCTAB = Marine Corps Training Area Bellows,
SSTC = Silver Strand Training Complex, SWTR = Shallow Water Training Range, CPAAA = Camp
Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area, OPAREA = Operating Area, SOAR = Southern California AntiSubmarine Warfare Range
2‐58 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐8: Proposed Training Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
60
318,000 rounds
HRC: Warning Areas -188,
191, 192, 193, 194, 196,
Mela South
350
1,855,000 rounds
SOCAL: Warning Area291, SHOBA, SOAR
16
84,000 rounds
HSTT Transit Corridor
44
4,800 rounds
(440 HE)
HRC: Warning Areas -188,
191, 192, 193, 194, 196,
Mela South
164
20,800 rounds
(1,640 HE)
SOCAL: Warning Area291, SHOBA, SOAR
32
6,400 rounds
(320 HE)
HSTT Transit Corridor
60
1,000 rounds
(934 HE)
HRC: Warning Areas -188,
191, 192, 193, 194, 196,
Mela South
190
8,500 rounds
(4,204 HE)
SOCAL: Warning Area291, SHOBA, SOAR
16
400 rounds (20 HE)
HSTT Transit Corridor
200
600,000
SOCAL: Warning
Area-291, SHOBA
10
100 HE rounds
100 HE grenades
200 NEPM rounds
HRC: OPAREA, Warning
Area-188
14
140 HE rounds
140 HE grenades
240 NEPM rounds
SOCAL: Warning
Area-291, SHOBA
12
12 Missiles
HRC: Warning Area-188
4
4 Missiles
SOCAL: Warning Area-291
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) (continued)
Gunnery Exercise (Surface-toSurface) Ship – Small-caliber
(GUNEX [S-S] – Ship) Smallcaliber
Gunnery Exercise (Surface-toSurface) Ship – Mediumcaliber
(GUNEX [S-S] – Ship)
Medium-caliber
Gunnery Exercise (Surface-toSurface) Ship – Large-caliber
(GUNEX [S-S] – Ship) Largecaliber
Gunnery Exercise (Surface-toSurface) Boat – Small-caliber
(GUNEX [S-S] – Boat) Smallcaliber
Gunnery Exercise (Surface-toSurface) Boat – Mediumcaliber
(GUNEX [S-S] – Boat)Medium-caliber
Missile Exercise (Surface-toSurface)
(MISSILEX [S-S])
Notes: HRC=Hawaii Range Complex, HE = High Explosive, OPAREA = Operating Area, SOCAL =
Southern California (Range Complex), SHOBA = Shore Bombardment Area, SOAR = Southern California
Anti-submarine Warfare Range, SSTC = Silver Strand Training Complex, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern
California Training and Testing 2‐59 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐8: Proposed Training Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
275
74,000 rounds
HRC: Warning Areas-188,
191, 192, 193, 194, 196,
Mela South
131
104,800
SOCAL: Warning
Area-291, (SOAR T-3, T-4,
T-5, MTR-2)
130
27,000
(6,000 HE)
HRC: Warning Areas-188,
191, 192, 193, 194, 196,
Mela South
100
48,000 rounds
(12,000 HE)
SOCAL: Warning
Area-291, (SOAR T-3, T-4,
T-5, MTR-2)
20
760 rockets
(760 HE)
HRC: Warning Area 188
130
3,800 rockets
(3,800 HE)
SOCAL: Warning Area
291,SOAR, FLETA Hot,
MISRs
57
57 HE missiles
HRC: Warning Area-188
214
214 HE missiles
SOCAL-SOAR, SHOBA
(LTR 1/2)
28
180 bombs
(56 HE bombs)
HRC-Hawaii OPAREA
120
1,280 bombs
(160 HE bombs)
SOCAL-SOAR, T-3, T-4, T5, MTR-2, SHOBA
5
90 bombs
(0 HE)
HSTT Transit Corridor
50
None
HRC: Warning Area-188
250
None
SOCAL-SOAR, SHOBA
(LTR 1/2)
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) (continued)
Gunnery Exercise (Air-toSurface) – Small-caliber
(GUNEX [A-S]) Small-caliber
Gunnery Exercise (Air-toSurface) – Medium-caliber
(GUNEX [A-S]) Mediumcaliber
Missile Exercise (Air-toSurface) – Rocket
(MISSILEX [A-S] – Rocket)
Missile Exercise (Air-toSurface)
(MISSILEX [A-S])
Bombing Exercise (Air-toSurface)
(BOMBEX [A-S])
Laser Targeting
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, HE = High Explosive, SOCAL = Southern California (Range
Complex), SOAR = Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range, MTR = Mine Training Range,
FLETA = Fleet Training Area, MISR = Missile Range, SHOBA = Shore Bombardment Area, LTR = Laser
Training Range, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing
2‐60 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐8: Proposed Training Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
6
36 Bombs
(18 HE)
10 Missiles
(6 HE)
300 Large-caliber
rounds (120 HE)
6 MK 48 HE
12,000 Mediumcaliber NEPM
HRC-Hawaii OPAREA
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)
Sinking Exercise (SINKEX)
12 Bombs
(6 HE)
4 Missiles
(2 HE)
100 Large-caliber
rounds
(40 HE)
2 MK 48 HE
4,000 Mediumcaliber NEPM
2
SOCAL: Warning Area291
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
Tracking Exercise/Torpedo
Exercise – Submarine
(TRACKEX/TORPEX – Sub)
Tracking Exercise/Torpedo
Exercise – Surface
(TRACKEX/TORPEX –
Surface)
127
244 MK 48
EXTORP
Hawaii OPAREA (including
BSURE, BARSTUR, SWTR,
North Maui Submarine
OPAREA)
63
76 MK 48 EXTORP
SOCAL OPAREAs, SOAR
(Tanner-Cortez Bank,
SWTR-NS)
7
None
HSTT Transit Corridor
274
20 EXTORP
30 REXTORP
HRC-Hawaii OPAREA
(including BSURE,
BARSTUR, SWTR)
540
48 EXTORP
69 REXTORP
SOCAL-SOCAL OPAREAs,
PMSR
Notes: HE = High Explosive, HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California (Range Complex),
EXTORP = Exercise Torpedo, REXTORP = Recoverable Exercise Torpedo, OPAREA = Operating Area,
BSURE = Barking Sands Underwater Range Extension, BARSTUR = Barking Sands Tactical Underwater
Range, SWTR = Shallow Water Training Range, NS = Near Shore, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California
Training and Testing, PMSR = Point Mugu Sea Range (overlap area only), SOAR = Southern California Antisubmarine Warfare Range, OS = Offshore, IEER = Improved Extended Echo Ranging, MAC = Multistatic Active
Coherent
2‐61 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐8: Proposed Training Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
165
6 EXTORP
110 REXTORP
HRC-Hawaii OPAREA
(including BSURE,
BARSTUR, SWTR)
628
6 EXTORP
200 REXTORP
SOCAL-SOAR, SWTR, San
Clemente Island Underwater
Range
6
None
HSTT Transit Corridor
296
20 EXTORP
210 REXTORP
HRC-Hawaii OPAREA
(including BSURE,
BARSTUR, SWTR)
116
24 EXTORP
17 REXTORP
SOCAL-SOAR, (SWTR-OS,
SWTR-NS), SWTR, SOCAL
OPAREAs
96
480 IEER buoys
1,440 MAC buoys
HRC OPAREA
48
120 IEER buoys
360 MAC buoys
SOCAL OPAREAs, PMSR,
SOAR (SWTR-OS, SWTRNS)
1,060
None
SOCAL: HCOTAs
2
30 MK 54
72 MK 48 EXTORP
Hawaii OPAREA, Maui
North/South
33
None
Hawaii OPAREA
350
None
SOCAL Waters (Electronic
Warfare Range)
8
None
Hawaii OPAREA
25
None
SOCAL Waters (Electronic
Warfare Range)
37
None
Hawaii OPAREA
125
None
SOCAL Waters (Electronic
Warfare Range)
30
None
Hawaii OPAREA
250
None
SOCAL Waters (Electronic
Warfare Range)
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) (continued)
Tracking Exercise/Torpedo
Exercise – Helicopter
(TRACKEX/TORPEX – Helo)
Tracking Exercise/Torpedo
Exercise – Maritime Patrol
Aircraft
(TRACKEX/TORPEX –
Maritime Patrol Aircraft)
Tracking Exercise – Maritime
Patrol Advanced Extended
Echo Ranging Sonobuoys
Kilo Dip – Helicopter
Submarine Command Course
(SCC) Operations
Electronic Warfare (EW)
Electronic Warfare Operations
(EW Ops)
Counter Targeting Flare
Exercise (FLAREX)
Counter Targeting Chaff
Exercise (CHAFFEX) – Ship
Counter Targeting Chaff
Exercise (CHAFFEX) –
Aircraft
Notes: SOCAL = Southern California (Range Complex), HCOTA = Helicopter Offshore Training Area, EXTORP =
Exercise Torpedo, OPAREA = Operating Area, HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, CPAAA = Camp Pendleton
Amphibious Assault Area, SSTC = Silver Strand Training Complex, NISMF = Naval Intermediate Ship Maintenance
Facility, TAR = Training Area and Range, SWAT = Special Warfare Training Area, SWTR = Shallow Water Training
Range
2‐62 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐8: Proposed Training Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
None
HRC-Hawaii OPAREA,
Kingfisher, Shallow-water
Minefield Sonar Training
Area
None
SOCAL-Kingfisher, TannerCortez Bank, Pyramid
Cove, CPAAA, Imperial
Beach Minefield
None
SOCAL: Kingfisher,
Tanner-Cortez Bank,
Imperial Beach Minefield,
SSTC, CPAAA
22
82 HE
HRC-Puuloa Underwater
Range, Barbers Point
Underwater Range,
NISMF, Lima Landing, Ewa
Training Minefield
75
300 HE
SOCAL-TAR 2, 3, and 21,
SWAT-1&2, SOAR, SWTR
279
414 HE
SSTC Boat Lanes 1–14
240
None
SOCAL-Pyramid cove, NW
Harbor, Imperial Beach,
SSTC
100
None
All SSTC Boat Lanes 1–14,
in water > 40 ft.
420
None
SOCAL-Pyramid cove, NW
Harbor, Imperial Beach,
SSTC
248
None
All SSTC Boat Lanes 1–14,
in water > 40 ft.
360 rounds
SOCAL-Pyramid cove, NW
Harbor, Kingfisher Training
Range, MTR-1, MTR-2,
Imperial Beach Minefield
Mine Warfare (MIW)
Mine Countermeasure
Exercise – MCM Sonar-Ship
Sonar
30
92
Mine Countermeasure
Exercise – Surface
(SMCMEX)
Mine Neutralization –
Explosive Ordnance Disposal
(EOD)
Mine Countermeasure (MCM)
– Towed Mine Neutralization
Mine Countermeasure (MCM)
– Mine Detection
Mine Countermeasure (MCM)
– Mine Neutralization
266
36
Note 1: Underwater detonations associated with this training occur only in the boat lanes.
Notes: HE = High Explosive; HRC = Hawaii Range Complex; SOCAL = Southern California (Range Complex);
SWTR = Shallow Water Training Range; SSTC = Silver Strand Training Complex; TAR = Training Area and Range;
SWAT = Special Warfare Training Area; SOAR = Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range; NW =
Northwest; MTR = Mine Training Range; CPAAA = Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area; OPAREA =
Operating Area; NISMF = Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility
2‐63 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐8: Proposed Training Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
40
8 HE
SOCAL: Kingfisher,
Tanner-Cortez Bank,
Imperial Beach Minefield,
CPAAA
208
20 HE
Note 1
SSTC-All SSTC Boat
Lanes 1–14
Breakers Beach, Delta I, II,
and Delta North, Echo
32
384 mine shapes
HRC: R-3101
18
750 mine shapes
SOCAL: MTRs, SWTR,
Pyramid Cove, China Point
10
None
HRC-Hawaii OPAREA,
Kingfisher, SWM, Sonar
Training Area
175
8 HE
Note 1
All SSTC Boat Lanes 1–14
Breakers Beach
90
90 HE
All SSTC Boat Lanes 1–14
SSTC San Diego Bay-Echo
200
None
All SSTC Boat Lanes 1–14
SSTC San Diego Bay-Echo
34
None
Hawaii OPAREA,
Kahoolawe Submarine
Training Minefield
32
None
ARPA Training Minefield,
SOCAL OPAREA, TannerCortez Bank
1
4 HE
Pearl Harbor, HI
1
4 HE
San Diego, CA
145
None
Hawaii OPAREA, MCTAB,
PMRF (Main Base)
40
None
SSTC Boat Lanes 1–10
Delta III, Echo, Foxtrot,
Golf, Hotel
Mine Warfare (MIW) (continued)
Mine Neutralization –
Remotely Operated Vehicle
Mine Laying
Marine Mammal System
Shock Wave Action Generator
Surf Zone Test
Detachment/Equipment Test
and Evaluation
Submarine Mine Exercise
Maritime Homeland
Defense/Security Mine
Countermeasures
Naval Special Warfare (NSW)
Personnel Insertion/Extraction
– Submarine
Note 1: Exercise is composed of various activities accounted for elsewhere within Table 2.8-1.
Note 2: Some components of RIMPAC may be conducted in SOCAL.
HE = High Explosive, OPAREA = Operating Area, ARPA = Advanced Research Projects Agency, SOCAL =
Southern California (Range Complex), SSTC = Silver Strand Training Complex, PMRF = Pacific Missile Range
Facility, MCTAB = Marine Corps Training Area Bellows, NW = Northwest, TAR = Training Area and Range,
SWAT = Special Warfare Training Area, PMSR = Point Mugu Sea Range (overlap area only), SOAR = Southern
California Anti-submarine Warfare Range
2‐64 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐8: Proposed Training Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
15
None
SOCAL OPAREA, San
Clemente Island
394
None
All SSTC Boat Lanes 1–14
Echo
Underwater Demolition
Multiple Charge – Mat Weave
and Obstacle Loading
18
18 HE
SOCAL: NW Harbor (TAR
2 and 3), SWAT
Underwater Demolition
Qualification/Certification
24
30 HE
All SSTC Boat and Beach
Lanes 1–14
Composite Training Unit
Exercise (COMPTUEX)
4
Note 1
SOCAL-SOCAL OPAREA
and PMSR
Joint Task Force Exercise
(JTFEX)/Sustainment Exercise
(SUSTEX)
6
Note 1
SOCAL-SOCAL OPAREA
and PMSR
Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC)
Exercise
1
Note 1
HRC-Hawaii OPAREA
Note 2
SOCAL
Multi-Strike Group Exercise
1
None
Hawaii OPAREA
Integrated Anti-Submarine
Warfare Course (IAC)
4
Note 1
SOCAL OPAREA-SOAR
Group Sail
2
Note 1
Hawaii OPAREA
8
Note 1
SOCAL OPAREA
Undersea Warfare Exercise
(USWEX)
5
Note 1
Hawaii OPAREA
Ship ASW Readiness and
Evaluation Measuring
(SHAREM)
2
8 MK 48 EXTORP
16 MK 46/54
EXTORP
SOCAL OPAREA
18
None
HRC-PHDSA
72
None
SSTC-Anchorages
6
2,100 small-caliber
rounds
Hawaii OPAREAs
36
10,500 blank rounds
SSTC Boat Lanes 1–10
Naval Special Warfare (NSW) (continued)
Personnel Insertion/Extraction
– Non-submarine
Major Training Events (continued)
Other
Precision Anchoring
Small Boat Attack
Note 1: Exercise is composed of various activities accounted for elsewhere within Table 2.8-1.
SOCAL = Southern California (Range Complex), OPAREA = Operating Area, EXTORP = Exercise Torpedo, HRC =
Hawaii Range Complex, PHDSA = Pearl Harbor Defensive Sea Area, SSTC = Silver Strand Training Complex,
FORACS = Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site, HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and
Testing
2‐65 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐8: Proposed Training Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
Offshore Petroleum Discharge
System (OPDS)
6
None
SSTC Boat Lanes 1–10,
Bravo, Waters outside of
boat lanes
Elevated Causeway System
(ELCAS)
4
None
SSTC Boat Lanes 1–10,
Designated Bravo Beach
training lane
216
None
Pearl Harbor Channel and
virtual channel south of
Pearl Harbor
84
None
Subase Pt. Loma and
seaward virtual channel
12
None
Hawaii OPAREAs
6
None
SOCAL OPAREAs
3
None
HRC: Puuloa Underwater
Range, PHDSA, Keehi
Lagoon, Pearl Harbor
148
None
Hawaii OPAREA; Pearl
Harbor; FORACS Range
488
None
SOCAL OPAREA, San
Diego Bay and ports
4
None
HSTT Transit Corridor
132
None
Hawaii OPAREA: Pearl
Harbor; FORACS Range
68
None
SOCAL OPAREA and
inport San Diego
4
None
HSTT Transit Corridor
Other (continued)
Submarine Navigation
Exercise
Submarine Under Ice
Certification
Salvage Operations
Surface Ship Sonar
Maintenance
Submarine Sonar
Maintenance
Notes: OPAREA = Operating Area, FORACS = Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site, SOCAL =
Southern California (Range Complex), HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing
2‐66 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐9: Proposed Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
11
None
Hawaii OPAREA
110
None
SOCAL OPAREA
50
None
Hawaii OPAREA
385
None
SOCAL OPAREA
44
None
Hawaii OPAREA
165
28 missiles, 22,000
medium-caliber
rounds, 330 rockets
SOCAL OPAREA
11
None
Hawaii OPAREA
50
None
SOCAL OPAREA
10
10 missiles (5 HE)
Hawaii OPAREA
100
156 missiles (48 HE)
SOCAL OPAREA
55
44,000 mediumcaliber rounds
(11,000 HE)
SOCAL OPAREA
66
748 rockets
(202 HE)
SOCAL OPAREA
6
None
SOCAL OPAREA
670
None
SOCAL OPAREA
12
22 torpedoes (All
NEPM)
Hawaii OPAREA
36
70 torpedoes (All
NEPM)
SOCAL OPAREA
5
None
Hawaii OPAREA
5
None
SOCAL OPAREA
36
744 (HE) sonobuoys
SOCAL OPAREA
Anti-Air Warfare (AAW)
Air Combat Maneuver
Air Platform/Vehicle Test
Air Platform Weapons
Integration Test
Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Test
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)
Air-to-Surface Missile Test
Air-to-Surface Gunnery Test
Rocket Test
Laser Targeting Test
Electronic Warfare (EW)
Electronic Systems Evaluation
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
Anti-Submarine Warfare
Torpedo Test
Kilo Dip
Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance
Test
Notes: OPAREA = Operating Area, SOCAL = Southern California [Range Complex], HE = High Explosive, NEPM =
Non-Explosive Practice Munition
2‐67 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐9: Proposed Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
122
211 HE sonobuoys
Hawaii OPAREA
188
1,267 HE sonobuoys
SOCAL OPAREA
14
308 HE sonobuoys
Hawaii OPAREA
33
1,004 HE sonobuoys
SOCAL OPAREA
Airborne Mine Neutralization
System Test (AMNS)
17
53 HE neutralizers
SOCAL OPAREA
Airborne Towed Minehunting
Sonar System Test
17
None
SOCAL OPAREA
Airborne Towed
Minesweeping System Test
17
None
SOCAL OPAREA
Airborne Laser-Based Mine
Detection System Test –
ALMDS
17
None
SOCAL OPAREA
17
330 medium caliber
rounds (All NEPM),
6 HE mines
SOCAL OPAREA
Test and Evaluation –
Catapult Launch
9,570
None
HSTT Study Area
Air Platform Shipboard
Integrate Test
136
None
HSTT Study Area
Shipboard Electronic Systems
Evaluation
136
None
HSTT Study Area
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) (continued)
Anti-submarine Warfare
Tracking Test – Helicopter
Anti-submarine Warfare
Tracking Test – Maritime
Patrol Aircraft
Mine Warfare (MIW)
Airborne Projectile-based
Mine Clearance System Test
Other Testing
Notes: OPAREA = Operating Area, SOCAL = Southern California [Range Complex], HSTT = Hawaii-Southern
California Training and Testing, HE = High Explosive, NEPM = Non-Explosive Practice Munition 2‐68 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐10: Proposed Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
Pierside Sonar
Testing
2
None
Pierside: Pearl Harbor, HI
2
None
Pierside: San Diego, CA
Propulsion
Testing
2
None
HRC
2
None
SOCAL
2
52 rounds
1,400 medium-caliber rounds
HRC
2
52 rounds
1,400 medium-caliber rounds
SOCAL
2
4 HE missiles
HRC
2
4 HE missiles
SOCAL
2
None
HRC
2
None
SOCAL
Anti-Surface
Warfare Testing
2
96 large-caliber rounds
HRC
2
96 large-caliber rounds
SOCAL
Anti-Submarine
Warfare Testing
2
None
HRC
2
None
SOCAL
Propulsion
Testing
21
None
SOCAL
Gun Testing –
Small Caliber
6
6,000 rounds
SOCAL
40
40 torpedoes SOCAL
16
16 torpedoes
5 (either
location)
2,500 rounds
5 (either
location)
7,000 rounds
(3,500 HE)
Gun Testing –
Large-caliber
5 (either
location)
7,000 rounds
(4,900 HE) Missile/Rocket
Testing
15 (either
location)
30 missiles/rockets (15 HE)
New Ship Construction
Surface
Combatant
Sea Trials
Gun Testing –
Large-caliber
Missile Testing
Decoy Testing
Other Ship
ClassNote 1
Sea Trials
ASW Mission Package
Testing
ASUW
Mission
Package
Testing
Gun Testing –
Small-caliber
Gun Testing –
Medium-caliber
HRC
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
Notes: HE = High Explosive, HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California [Range Complex],
FLETA = Fleet Training Area, SOAR = Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range, ASW = Anti-Submarine
Warfare, ASUW = Anti-Surface Warfare 2‐69 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐10: Proposed Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
4
None SOCAL: CPAAA
8
128 neutralizers (64 HE)
SOCAL: Pyramid Cove
4
None
SOCAL: Tanner Bank
Minefield
4
128 neutralizers (64 HE)
HRC
22
None
HRC
22
None
SOCAL
3
None
HRC
6
None
Pierside Pearl Harbor, HI
39
None
SOCAL
Surface Ship Sonar
Testing/Maintenance (in
OPAREAs and Ports)
17
None
HRC
10
None
SOCAL
Submarine Sonar
Testing/Maintenance (in
OPAREAs and Ports)
18
None HRC
9
None
SOCAL
Combat System Ship
Qualification Trial (CSSQT) –
In-port Maintenance Period
2
None Pierside: Pearl Harbor, HI
2
None Pierside: San Diego, CA
6
12,000 medium caliber
rounds, 120 large caliber
rounds (48 HE), 84 missiles
(42 HE)
HRC: PMRF
2
2 HE missiles
SOCAL
6
12,000 medium caliber
rounds, 1,800 large caliber
rounds (678 HE), 6 missiles
HRC: PMRF
13
14,000 medium caliber
rounds, 3,420 large caliber
rounds (1,511 HE), 9 missiles
SOCAL
10
80 torpedoes
HRC: PMRF
11
88 torpedoes
SOCAL
New Ship Construction (continued)
MCM Mission Package
Testing
Post-Homeporting Testing (all
classes)
Life Cycle Activities
Ship Signature Testing
Combat System Ship
Qualification Trial (CSSQT) –
Air Defense (AD)
Combat System Ship
Qualification Trial (CSSQT) –
Anti-surface Warfare (ASUW)
Combat System Ship
Qualification Trial (CSSQT) –
Undersea Warfare (USW)
Notes: ASUW = Anti-surface Warfare, MCM = Mine Countermeasure, SOCAL = Southern California [Range
Complex], CPAAA = Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area, HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, HI = Hawaii, HE =
High Explosive, PMRF = Pacific Missile Range Facility 2‐70 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐10: Proposed Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)/Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Testing
Missile Testing
Kinetic Energy Weapon
Testing
Electronic Warfare Testing
Torpedo (Non-explosive)
Testing
Torpedo (Explosive) Testing
24
(either
location)
24 missiles
HRC: PMRF
55
2,200 projectiles
HRC: PMRF
1 event total
5,000 projectiles
HRC: PMRF
106
None
Pierside: Pearl Harbor, HI
16
None
HRC
54
None
SOCAL
9
140 torpedoes
HRC: HATS, NMAUI or
Penguin Bank
10
250 torpedoes
HRC: PMRF
2
16 torpedoes
Hawaii SWTR
17
391 torpedoes
SOCAL: Tanner Bank
Minefield, SOAR, or
SHOBA
2
28 torpedoes (8 HE)
HRC
2
28 torpedoes (8 HE)
SOCAL
1
None
5
105 torpedoes (21 HE)
HRC
2
84 torpedoes
SOCAL
10 (either
location)
None
20
(either
location)
None
SOCAL
Counter-measure Testing
Pierside Sonar Testing
At-sea Sonar Testing
Transit Corridor
Pierside: Pearl Harbor, HI
Pierside: San Diego, CA
HRC
SOCAL
Notes: HE = High Explosive, SOCAL = Southern California [Range Complex], HRC = Hawaii Range Complex,
PMRF = Pacific Missile Range Facility, HI = Hawaii, HATS = Hawaii Area Tracking System, NMAUI = Test area
north of Maui, SWTR = Shallow Water Training Range, SOAR = Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare
Range, SHOBA = Shore Bombardment Area 2‐71 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐10: Proposed Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities (continued) Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
2
None
HRC
3
None
HRC: Kahoolawe Training
Minefield
5
None
SOCAL
3
None
SOCAL: Mission Bay
Training Minefield
Mine Countermeasure/
Neutralization Testing
14
28 HE charges
SOCAL
Pierside Systems Health
Checks
4
None
Pierside: San Diego, CA
Mine Warfare (MIW) Testing
Mine Detection and
Classification Testing
Shipboard Protection Systems and Swimmer Defense Testing
Pierside Integrated Swimmer
Defense
5
None
Pierside: San Diego, CA
Shipboard Protection Systems
Testing
4
None
Pierside: San Diego, CA
4
1,300 rounds (small-caliber)
SOCAL
Chemical/Biological Simulant
Testing
440
(either
location)
None
30 (either
location)
None
17
None
HRC
26
None
SOCAL
4
(either
location)
None
2
(either
location)
None
HRC
SOCAL
Unmanned Vehicle Testing
Underwater Deployed
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Testing
Unmanned Vehicle
Development and Payload
Testing
HRC
SOCAL
Other Testing
Special Warfare
Acoustic Communications
Testing
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California [Range Complex], HI = Hawaii, CA =
California, HE = High Explosive
2‐72 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 2‐11: Proposed Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Testing Activities Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Testing
Autonomous Undersea
Vehicle (AUV) AntiTerrorism/Force Protection
(AT/FP) Mine
Countermeasures
92
None
SOCAL
20
None
HRC
AUV Underwater
Communications
92
None
SOCAL
20
None
HRC
Fixed System Underwater
Communications
37
None
SOCAL
92
None
SOCAL
20
None
HRC
Fixed Autonomous
Oceanographic Research and
METOC
26
None
SOCAL
Passive Mobile Intelligence,
Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Sensor
Systems
27
None
SOCAL
39
None
SOCAL
4
None
HRC
11
None
SOCAL
AUV Autonomous
Oceanographic Research and
Meteorology and
Oceanography (METOC)
Fixed Intelligence,
Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Sensor
Systems
Anti-Terrorism/Force
Protection (AT/FP) Fixed
Sensor Systems
Notes: Activities in this table located in SOCAL may occur in San Diego Bay. HRC = Hawaii Range Complex,
SOCAL = Southern California [Range Complex]
Table 2‐12: Proposed Office of Naval Research Testing Activities Proposed Action
Range Activity
No. of events
(per year)
Ordnance
(Number per year)
Location
None
Hawaii Range Complex –
PMRF (Warning Areas –
72B, and 386 [Air D, G, H,
and K])
Office of Naval Research
Kauai Acoustic
Communications Experiment
2
Notes: PMRF = Pacific Missile Range Facility
2‐73 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank
2‐74 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 3 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
In 1996, the Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) was reauthorized and amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104‐267). The reauthorized MSA mandated numerous changes to the existing legislation designed to prevent overfishing, rebuild depleted fish stocks, minimize bycatch, enhance research, improve monitoring, and protect fish habitat. One of the most significant mandates in the MSA that came out of the reauthorization was the EFH provision, which provides the means to conserve fish habitat. The EFH mandate requires that the regional Fishery Management Councils, through federal fishery management plans, describe and identify EFH for each federally managed species; minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing; and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitats. Congress defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) §1802(10). The term “fish” is defined in the MSA as “finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animals and plant life other than marine mammals and birds.” The regulations for implementing EFH clarify that “waters” include all aquatic areas and their biological, chemical, and physical properties, while “substrate” includes the associated biological communities that make these areas suitable fish habitats (50 C.F.R. §600.10). Habitats used at any time during a species’ life cycle (i.e., during at least one of its lifestages) must be accounted for when describing and identifying EFH (National Marine Fisheries Service 2002). Authority to implement the MSA is given to the Secretary of Commerce through NMFS. The MSA requires that EFH be identified and described for each federally managed species. The MSA also requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH or when the NMFS independently learns of a federal activity that may adversely affect EFH. The MSA defines an adverse effect as “any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site‐specific or habitat‐wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions” (50 C.F.R. §600.810). In addition to EFH designations, areas called Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are also designated by the regional Fishery Management Councils. Designated HAPCs are discrete subsets of EFH that provide extremely important ecological functions or are especially vulnerable to degradation (50 C.F.R. §600.805‐600.815). Regional Fishery Management Councils may designate a specific habitat area as a HAPC based on one or more of the following reasons (National Marine Fisheries Service 2002): 1)
2)
3)
4)
Importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human‐induced environmental degradation Whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type Rarity of the habitat type Categorization of an area as a HAPC does not confer additional protection or restriction to the designated area. The area encompassed by the Proposed Action (Study Area) extends through the jurisdiction of two Fishery Management Councils: Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and Western Pacific 3‐1 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC). As a result, training and testing activities that occur as part of the Proposed Action have the potential to affect EFH and HAPCs designated by these Councils. In addition, inshore fisheries (less than 3 nm) off the California coastline are managed by the California Department of Fish and Game (California Department of Fish and Game 2002). However, in practice, state and federal fisheries agencies manage fisheries cooperatively and Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) generally cover the area from coastal estuaries out to 200 nm offshore. 3.1
PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
The PFMC’s jurisdiction includes the 317,690 mi.2 (822,813 km2) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Washington, Oregon, and California (Figure 3‐1). The PFMC manages fisheries for approximately 119 species of salmon, groundfish, coastal pelagic species (sardines, anchovies, and mackerel), and highly migratory species (tunas, sharks, and swordfish). The PFMC is also active in international fishery management organizations that manage fish stocks that migrate through its area of jurisdiction, including the International Pacific Halibut Commission), the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (for albacore tuna and other highly migratory species), and the Inter‐American Tropical Tuna Commission (for yellowfin tuna and other high migratory species). The PFMC has designated EFH and HAPCs for these species, and within the Study Area three FMPs are applicable and include: •
•
•
3.1.1
3.1.1.1
Pacific Coast Groundfish (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2011a) Coastal Pelagic Species (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1998) Highly Migratory Species (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2011b) PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH
Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat
The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP manages over 90 species within a large and ecologically diverse area (see Appendix A for a complete listing). Designations of EFH for each species and their component individual life history stages are provided in Appendix B of PFMC Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery (2011a). The overall extent of groundfish EFH for all managed species is identified as all waters and substrate within the following areas: •
•
Depths less than or equal to 3,500 m (1,914 fathoms [fm]) to mean higher high water level (MHHW) or the upriver extent of saltwater intrusion, defined as upstream and landward to where ocean‐derived salts measure less than 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt) during the period of average annual low flow Seamounts in depths greater than 3,500 m as mapped in the EFH assessment geographic information system (GIS) Figure 3‐2 shows the extent of this EFH identification. 3‐2 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐1: Fishery Management Council Regions 3‐3 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 3.1.1.2
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Designations
The PFMC has identified both areas and habitat types of five HAPC: estuaries, canopy kelp, seagrass, rocky reefs, and “areas of interest” (e.g., undersea features, such as banks, seamounts, and canyons) (Table 3‐1, Figure 3‐3). HAPCs based on habitat type may vary in location and extent over time. For this reason, the mapped extent of these areas offers only a first approximation of their location. Defining criteria of habitat‐type for HAPCs are described below, and may be applied in specific circumstances to determine whether a given area is designated as a groundfish HAPC. HAPCs include all waters, substrates, and associated biological communities falling within the area defined by the criteria below. Table 3‐1: Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern designated by Pacific Fishery Management Council Management Unit
Pacific Groundfish
Coastal Pelagic Species
Highly Migratory Species
EFH
All waters and substrate within the
following areas less than or equal to
3,500 m (1,914 fm) to mean higher
high water level or the upriver extent
of saltwater intrusion.
HAPCs
Estuaries, canopy kelp, seagrass,
rocky reefs, and “areas of interest”
• Seamounts in depths greater than
3,500 m (1,914 fm) as mapped in
the EFH assessment geographic
information system.
All marine and estuarine waters
above the thermocline from the
shoreline offshore to 200 nm
offshore.
All marine waters from the shoreline
offshore to 200 nm offshore.
None
None
Source: Pacific Fisheries Management Council 1998, 2011a, b
Notes: EFH = Essential Fish Habitat, HAPC = Habitat Area of Particular Concern, m = meters, fm = fathoms, nm = nautical miles
3‐4 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐2: Pacific Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat 3‐5 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment For HAPCs defined by habitat type, as opposed to discrete areas, Figure 3‐3 offers a first approximation of their location and extent. The precision of the underlying data used to create these maps, and the fact that the extent of HAPCs defined by key benthic organisms (canopy kelp, seagrass) can change along with changes in the distribution of these organisms, means that at fine scales the map may not accurately represent their location and extent. Defining criteria are provided in the following descriptions of HAPCs, which can be used in conjunction with the map to determine if a specific location is within one of these HAPCs. The areas of interest HAPCs are defined by discrete boundaries. The coordinates defining these boundaries are listed in Appendix B of PFMC Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery (2011a). 3.1.1.2.1
Estuaries
As described in PFMC 2008, Estuaries are protected nearshore areas such as bays, sounds, inlets, and river mouths, influenced by ocean and freshwater. Because of tidal cycles and freshwater input, salinity varies within estuaries and results in great diversity, offering freshwater, brackish, and marine habitats within close proximity (Haertel and Osterberg 1967). Estuaries tend to be shallow, protected, nutrient‐
rich, and are biologically productive, providing important habitat for marine organisms, including groundfish. Defining characteristics: The inland extent of the estuary HAPC is defined as MHHW, or the upriver extent of saltwater intrusion, defined as upstream and landward to where ocean‐derived salts measure less than 0.5 ppt during the period of average annual low flow. The seaward extent is an inferred line closing the mouth of a river, bay, or sound, and to the seaward limit of wetland emergents, shrubs, or trees occurring beyond the lines closing rivers, bays, or sounds. This HAPC also includes those estuary‐
influenced offshore areas of continuously diluted seawater. This definition is based on Cowardin et al. (1979). 3.1.1.2.2
Canopy Kelp
As described in PFMC 2008, of the habitats associated with the rocky substrate on the continental shelf, kelp forests are of primary importance to the ecosystem and serve as important groundfish habitat. Kelp forest communities are found relatively close to shore along the open coast. These subtidal communities provide vertically‐structured habitat throughout the water column: a canopy of tangled blades from the surface to a depth of 10 ft., a mid‐water stipe region, and the holdfast region at the seafloor. Kelp stands provide nurseries, feeding grounds, and shelter to a variety of groundfish species and their prey (Ebeling et al. 1980). Kelp communities are highly productive relative to other habitats, including wetlands, shallow and deep sand bottoms, and rock‐bottom artificial reefs (Bond et al. 1998). Their net primary production is an important component to the energy flow within food webs. Foster and Schiel (1985) reported that the net primary productivity of kelp beds may be the highest of any marine community. The net primary production of seaweeds in a kelp forest is available to consumers as living tissue on attached algae, as drift in the form of whole plants or detached pieces, and as dissolved organic matter exuded by attached and drifting plants (Foster and Schiel 1985). Geographic Information System data for the floating kelp species, Macrocystis spp. and Nereocystis sp., are available from the State of California. These data have been compiled into a comprehensive data layer delineating kelp beds along the west coast. The kelp source data were provided by the California Department of Fish and Game. 3‐6 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐3: Pacific Groundfish Habitat Areas of Particular Concern 3‐7 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Source data were collected using a variety of remote sensing techniques, including aerial photos and multispectral imagery. Because kelp abundance and distribution is highly variable, these data do not necessarily represent current conditions. However, data from multiple years were compiled together with the assumption that these data would indicate areas where kelp has been known to occur. A comprehensive kelp survey in California was performed in 1989 and additional surveys of most of the coastline occurred in 1999 and 2002. Defining characteristics: The canopy kelp HAPC includes those waters, substrate, and other biogenic habitat associated with canopy‐forming kelp species (e.g., Macrocystis spp. and Nereocystis sp.). 3.1.1.2.3
Seagrass
As described in PFMC 2008, seagrass species found on the U.S. west coast include eelgrass species (Zostera spp.), widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima), and surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.). These grasses are vascular plants, not seaweeds, forming dense beds of leafy shoots year‐round in the lower intertidal and subtidal areas. Eelgrass is found on soft‐bottom substrates in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas of estuaries and occasionally in other nearshore areas, such as the Channel Islands and Santa Barbara littoral. Surfgrass is found on hard‐bottom substrates along higher energy coasts. Studies have shown seagrass beds to be among the areas of highest primary productivity in the world (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2011a). Despite their known ecological importance for many commercial species, seagrass beds have not been as comprehensively mapped as kelp beds. Wyllie‐Echeverria and Ackerman (2003) published a coastwide assessment of seagrass that identifies sites known to support seagrass and estimates of seagrass bed areas; however, their report does not compile existing GIS data. GIS data for seagrass beds were located and compiled as part of the groundfish EFH assessment process. Eelgrass mapping projects have been undertaken for many estuaries along the west coast. These mapping projects are generally done for a particular estuary, and many different mapping methods and mapping scales have been used. Therefore, the data that have been compiled for eelgrass beds are an incomplete view of eelgrass distribution along the west coast. Data depicting surfgrass distribution are very limited—the only GIS data showing surfgrass are for the San Diego area. Defining characteristics: The seagrass HAPC includes those waters, substrate, and other biogenic features associated with eelgrass species (Zostera spp.), widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima), or surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.). 3.1.1.2.4
Rocky Reefs
As described in PFMC 2008, rocky habitats are generally categorized as either nearshore or offshore in reference to the proximity of the habitat to the coastline. Rocky habitat may be composed of bedrock, boulders, or smaller rocks, such as cobble and gravel. Hard substrates are one of the least abundant benthic habitats, yet they are among the most important habitats for groundfish and invertebrates that groundfish depend on for food. Defining characteristics: The rocky reefs HAPC includes those waters, substrates, and other biogenic features associated with hard substrate (bedrock, boulders, cobble, gravel, etc.) to MHHW. A first approximation of its extent is provided by the substrate GIS data in the groundfish EFH assessment. However, at finer scales, through direct observation, it may be possible to further distinguish between hard and soft substrate in order to define the extent of this HAPC. 3‐8 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 3.1.1.2.5
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Areas of Interest
As described in PFMC 2008, areas of interest are discrete areas that are of special interest due to their unique geological and ecological characteristics. Applicable areas of interest are designated HAPCs: •
Off of California: all seamounts; specific areas in the federal waters of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary; specific areas of the Cowcod Conservation Area (Figure 3‐4). Seamounts and canyons are prominent features in the coastal underwater landscape, and may be important in rockfish management because “rockfish distributions closely match the bathymetry of coastal waters” (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2011a). Coastal waters defined as water depths less than 3,500 m per Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. Figure 3‐4: Areas of Interest Closed to Fishing to Protect Pacific Coast Groundfish Habitat – Southern California As noted in PFMC Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery (2011a), seamounts rise steeply to heights of over 3,300 ft. (1,000 m) from their base and are typically formed of hard volcanic substrate. They are unique in that they tend to create complex current patterns and have highly localized species distributions. Because the faunal assemblages on these features are still poorly studied, and species new to science are likely to be found, human activities affecting these features need careful management (McClain et al. 2009) . Discrete areas such as the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, and the Cowcod Conservation Areas, are designated HAPCs because they are afforded high levels of protection through their inclusion 3‐9 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment in a National Marine Sanctuary and/or designation as an ecologically important closed area. These designations both reflect and enhance their value as groundfish habitat. Defining characteristics: The area‐based HAPCs are defined by their mapped boundaries in the EFH assessment GIS. The coordinates defining these boundaries may be found in Appendix B of PFMC Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery (2011a). 3.1.2
3.1.2.1
COASTAL PELAGIC SPECIES
Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat
The Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) inhabit the pelagic realm (i.e., live in the water column, not near the sea floor), and are usually found from the surface to 3,281 ft. (1,000 m) deep (Figure 3‐5). For the purposes of EFH, the CPS are treated as a complex because of the similarities in their life histories and similarities in their habitat requirements. The CPS FMP includes four finfish and two invertebrates (northern anchovy, Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, and jack mackerel, market squid, and krill ‐
Appendix A). Designated EFH for CPS includes all marine and estuarine waters above the thermocline from the shoreline to 200 nm offshore (Table 3‐1). CPS are impacted directly (harvested) and indirectly (as bycatch) since they are usually targeted with “round‐haul” gear including purse seines, drum seines, lampara nets, and dip nets. They are also taken as bycatch in midwater trawls, pelagic trawls, gillnets, trammel nets, trolls, pots, hook‐and‐line, and jigs. Market squid are fished nocturnally using bright lights to attract the squid to the surface. They are pumped directly from the sea into the hold of the boat, or taken with an encircling net (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1998). Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) are small, short‐lived fish that typically school near the surface. They occur from British Columbia to Baja California. Northern anchovies are divided into northern, central, and southern sub‐populations. The central sub‐population used to be the focus of large commercial fisheries in the United States and Mexico. Most of this sub‐population is located in the Southern California Bight (SCB) between Point Conception, California and Point Descanso, Mexico. Northern anchovy are an important part of the food chain for other species, including other fish, birds, and marine mammals. Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), also small schooling fish, have been the most abundant fish species managed under the CPS FMP. They range from the tip of Baja California to southeastern Alaska and throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Sardines live up to 13 years, but are usually captured in the fishery at less than 5 years old. Pacific (chub) mackerel (Scomber japonicus) are found from Mexico to southeastern Alaska, but are most abundant south of Point Conception, California within 20 mi. (32 km) from shore. The “northeastern Pacific” stock of Pacific mackerel is harvested by fishers in the United States and Mexico. Like sardines and anchovies, mackerel are schooling fish, often co‐occurring with other pelagic species like jack mackerel and sardines. As with other CPS, they are preyed upon by a variety of fish, mammals, and seabirds. 3‐10 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐5: Designated Essential Fish Habitat for Coastal Pelagic Species 3‐11 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus) grow to about 2 ft. (60 centimeters [cm]) and can live up to 35 years. They are found throughout the northeastern Pacific, often well outside the EEZ. Small jack mackerel are most abundant in the SCB, near the mainland coast, around islands, and over shallow rocky banks. Older, larger fish range from Cabo San Lucas, Baja California, to the Gulf of Alaska, offshore into deep water and along the coast to the north of Point Conception. Jack mackerel in southern California usually school over rocky banks, artificial reefs, and shallow rocky reefs (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1998). Market squid (Doryteuthis [Loligo] opalescens) range from the southern tip of Baja California to southeastern Alaska. They are most abundant between Punta Eugenia, Baja California, and Monterey Bay, California. Usually found near the surface, market squid can occur to depths of 2,625 ft. (800 m) or more. Squid live less than a year and prefer full‐salinity ocean waters. They are important forage foods for fish, birds, and marine mammals (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1998). Krill (euphausiids) are small shrimp‐like crustaceans that are an important base of the marine food chain. They are eaten by many Managed Species, as well as by whales and seabirds. The PFMC is presently considering identifying EFH and possibly HAPCs for two individual krill species, Euphausia pacifica and Thysanoessa spinifera, and for other species of krill as a separate category. In 2006, the PFMC adopted a complete ban on commercial fishing for all species of krill in West Coast federal waters (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2008). 3.1.2.2
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Designations
No HAPCs have been designated for coastal pelagic species (Table 3‐1). 3.1.3
3.1.3.1
HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat
In general, the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) management unit species (MUS) are found in temperate waters within the Pacific Council’s region (Table 3‐2). Variations in the distribution and abundance of the management unit species are affected by ever‐changing oceanic environmental conditions including water temperature, current patterns, and the availability of food. Sea surface temperatures and habitat boundaries vary seasonally and from year to year, with some HMS much more abundant from northern California to Washington waters during the summer and warm waters years than during winter and cold water years, due to increased habitat availability within the EEZ. There are large gaps in the scientific knowledge about basic life histories and habitat requirements of a few management unit species. The migration patterns of the stocks in the Pacific Ocean are poorly understood and difficult to categorize despite extensive tagging studies for many species. Little is known about the distribution and habitat requirements of the juvenile life stages of tuna and billfish after they leave the plankton until they recruit to fisheries. Very little is known about the habitat of different life stages of most highly migratory species which are not targeted by fisheries (e.g., certain species of sharks). HMS are harvested by U.S. commercial and recreational fishers and by foreign fishing fleets, with only a fraction of the total harvest taken within U.S. waters (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2011b). HMS are also an important component of the recreational sport fishery, especially in southern California. For these reasons, the Council recommends a precautionary approach in designating EFH for the management unit species (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2011b). EFH for HMS consists of all marine waters from the shoreline offshore to 200 nm offshore (Table 3‐2). HMS travel widely in the ocean, both in terms of area and depth. They are usually not associated with 3‐12 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment the features typically considered fish habitat (like estuaries, seagrass beds, or rocky bottoms). Their habitat selection appears to be less related to physical features and more to temperature ranges, salinity levels, oxygen levels, and currents. 3.1.3.2
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Designations
The PFMC has currently identified no HMS HAPCs. Table 3‐2: Highly Migratory Species Management Unit Sharks
Bigeye thresher shark
Alopias superciliosus
Blue shark
Prionace glauca
Thresher shark
Alopias vulpinus
Pelagic thresher shark
Alopias pelagicus
Shortfin mako shark
Isurus oxyrinchus
Tunas
Albacore tuna
Thunnus alalunga
Bigeye tuna
Thunnus obesus
Northern bluefin tuna
Thunnus orientalis
Skipjack tuna
Katsuwonus pelamis
Yellowfin tuna
Thunnus albacares
Billfish
Striped marlin
Tetrapturus audax
Swordfish
Broadbill swordfish
Xiphias gladius
Dolphin-fish
Dorado (mahi mahi)
Coryphaena hippurus
Source: Pacific Fishery Management Council 2011b
3.2
WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) has authority over the fisheries based in, and surrounding, the State of Hawaii, the Territory of American Samoa, the Territory of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA) of the Western Pacific Region (Figure 3‐6). The PRIA comprise Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Wake Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Midway Atoll. The WPRFMC developed a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) as an FMP, consistent with the MSA and the national standards for fishery conservation and management (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009a). The FEP represents the first step in an incremental and collaborative approach to implement ecosystem approaches to fishery management in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Since the 1980s, the Council has managed fisheries throughout the Western Pacific Region through separate species based FMPs—the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1986a), the Crustaceans FMP (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1981), the Precious Corals FMP (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1979), the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2001), and the Pelagic FMP (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1986b). 3‐13 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐6: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Geographic Area However, the WPRMC is now moving towards an ecosystem‐based approach to fisheries management and is restructuring its management framework from species‐based FMPs to placebased FEPs. Recognizing that a comprehensive ecosystem approach to fisheries management must be initiated through an incremental, collaborative, and adaptive management process, a multi‐step approach is being used to develop and implement the FEPs. To be successful, this will require increased understanding of a range of issues including biological and trophic relationships, ecosystem indicators and models, and the ecological effects of non‐fishing activities on the marine environment. The Hawaii Archipelago FEP establishes the framework under which the WPRMC will manage fishery resources, and begin the integration and implementation of ecosystem approaches to management in the Hawaii Archipelago. This FEP does not establish any new fishery management regulations at this time, but rather consolidates existing fishery regulations for demersal species. Specifically, this FEP identifies as MUS those species known to be present in waters around the Hawaii Archipelago and incorporates all of the management provisions of the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP, the Crustaceans FMP, the Precious Corals FMP, and the Coral Reef Ecosystems FMP that are applicable to the area. Although pelagic fishery resources play an important role in the biological as well as the socioeconomic environment of these islands, they will be managed separately through the Pacific Pelagic FEP. The EFH designations were developed by the WPRMC and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. EFH designations for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Crustaceans, and Precious Corals were approved 3‐14 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment by the Secretary on February 3, 1999 (64 Federal Register [F.R.] 19068). EFH designations for Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS were approved by the Secretary on June 14, 2002 (69 F.R. 8336). In addition to EFH, the WPRMC identified HAPCs within EFH for all FMPs. HAPCs are specific areas within EFH that are essential to the life cycle of federally managed coral reef species. In determining whether a type or area of EFH should be designated as a HAPC, one or more of the following criteria established by NMFS should be met: (a) the ecological function provided by the habitat is important; (b) the habitat is sensitive to human‐induced environmental degradation; (c) development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type; or (d) the habitat type is rare. However, it is important to note that if an area meets only one of the HAPC criteria, it will not necessarily be designated a HAPC. Table 3‐3 summarizes the EFH and HAPC designations for all Western Pacific Archipelagic FEP MUS, including Hawaii Archipelago FEP MUS. 3.2.1
3.2.1.1
BOTTOMFISH MANAGEMENT UNIT
Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat
Except for several of the major commercial species, very little is known about the life histories, habitat utilization patterns, food habits, or spawning behavior of most adult bottomfish and seamount groundfish species (see Appendix A for a complete listing). Furthermore, very little is known about the distribution and habitat requirements of juvenile bottomfish. Generally, the distribution of adult bottomfish in the Western Pacific Region is closely linked to suitable physical habitat (Friedlander and DeMartini 2002; Friedlander 2004; Ralston 1984; Ralston and Polovina 1982). Unlike the U.S. mainland with its continental shelf ecosystems, Pacific islands are primarily volcanic peaks with steep drop‐offs and limited shelf ecosystems. The Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS) under the WPFRMC’s jurisdiction are found concentrated on the steep slopes of deepwater banks. The 100‐fm isobath is commonly used as an index of bottomfish habitat. Adult bottomfish are usually found in habitats characterized by a hard substrate of high structural complexity. The total extent and geographic distribution of the preferred habitat of bottomfish is not well known. Bottomfish populations are not evenly distributed within their natural habitat; instead, they are found dispersed in a non‐random, patchy fashion (Moffitt 1980; Moffitt 1993; Friedlander 2004). There is regional variation in species composition, as well as a relative abundance of the MUS of the deepwater bottomfish complex in the Western Pacific Region (WPFRMC 2009a). In American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, the bottomfish fishery can be divided into two distinct fisheries: a shallow‐ and a deep‐water bottomfish fishery, based on species and depth. The shallow‐water (0 to 330 ft. [0 to 100 m]) bottomfish complex comprises groupers, snappers, and jacks in the genera Lethrinus, Lutjanus, Epinephelus, Aprion, Caranx, Variola, and Cephalopholis (Table 3‐3). The deep‐water (330 to 1,300 ft. [100 to 400 m]) bottomfish complex comprises primarily snappers and groupers in the genera Pristipomoides, Etelis, Aphareus, Epinephelus, and Cephalopholis (Table 3‐3). In Hawaii, the bottomfish fishery targets several species of eteline snappers, carangids, and a single species of grouper. The target species are generally found at depths of 165 to 900 ft. (50 to 270 m). 3‐15 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 3‐3: EFH and HAPC Designations for Hawaii Archipelago FEP Management Unit Management Unit
Species Complex
Temperate species
Tropical species
Pelagic
Sharks
Squid
Bottomfish and
Seamount
Groundfish
Shallow-water species (0 to 50 fm): uku (Aprion
virescens), thicklip trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex),
giant trevally (Caranx ignoblis), black trevally
(Caranx lugubris), amberjack (Seriola dumerili),
taape (Lutjanus kasmira)
Bottomfish and
Seamount
Groundfish
Deep-water species (50 to 200 fm): ehu (Etelis
carbunculus), onaga (Etelis coruscans), opakapaka
(Pristipomoides filamentosus), yellowtail kalekale
(P. auricilla), kalekale (P. sieboldii), gindai (P.
zonatus), hapuupuu (Epinephelus quernus), lehi
(Aphareus rutilans)
Bottomfish and
Seamount
Groundfish
Seamount groundfish species (50 to 200 fm):
armorhead (Pseudopentaceros richardsoni),
ratfish/butterfish (Hyperoglyphe japonica), alfonsin
(Beryx splendens)
EFH
Eggs and larvae: the water column
extending from the shoreline to the outer
limit of the EEZ down to a depth of 656 ft.
(200 m)
Juvenile/adults: the water column
extending from the shoreline to a depth
of 3,280 ft. (1,000 m)
HAPC
Water column down to 3,280 ft.
(1,000 m) that lies above
seamounts and banks
Eggs and larvae: the water column
extending from the shoreline to the outer
limit of the EEZ down to a depth of 1,310
ft. (400 m)
All slopes and escarpments
between 130 and 920 ft. (40 and
280 m)
Juvenile/adults: the water column and
all bottom habitat extending from the
shoreline to a depth of 1,310 ft. (400 m)
Three known areas of juvenile
opakapaka habitat: two off Oahu
and one off Molokai
Eggs and larvae: the water column
extending from the shoreline to the outer
limit of the EEZ down to a depth of 1,310
ft. (400 m)
All slopes and escarpments
between 130 and 920 ft. (40 and
280 m)
Juvenile/adults: the water column and
all bottom habitat extending from the
shoreline to a depth of 1,310 ft. (400 m)
Three known areas of juvenile
opakapaka habitat: two off Oahu
and one off Molokai
Eggs, larvae, and juveniles: the
(epipelagic zone) water column down to
a depth of 55 ft. (00 m) of all EEZ waters
bounded by latitude 29°–35° N and
longitude 171° E–179° W
Adults: all EEZ waters and bottom
habitat bounded by latitude 29°–35° N
and longitude 171° E–179° W between
260 to 1,970 ft. (80 to 600 m)
3‐16 No HAPC designated for
seamount groundfish
Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 3‐3: EFH and HAPC Designations for Hawaii Archipelago FEP Management Unit (continued) Management Unit
Crustaceans
Species Complex
Spiny and slipper lobster complex:
Hawaiian spiny lobster (Panulirus marginatus),
spiny lobster (P. penicillatus, P. spp.), ridgeback
slipper lobster (Scyllarides haanii), Chinese slipper
lobster (Parribacus antarcticus)
Kona crab:
Kona crab (Ranina ranina)
Deepwater shrimp (Heterocarpus spp.)
Shallow-water precious corals (10 to 50 fm):
black coral (Antipathes dichotoma), black coral
(Antipathis grandis), black coral (Antipathes ulex)
Precious
Corals
Coral Reef
Ecosystems
(CRE)
Deep-water precious corals (150 to 750 fm):
Pink coral (Corallium secundum), red coral (C.
regale), pink coral (C. laauense), midway deepsea
coral (C. sp nov.), gold coral (Gerardia spp.), gold
coral (Callogorgia gilberti), gold coral (Narella spp.),
gold coral (Calyptrophora spp.), bamboo coral
(Lepidisis olapa), bamboo coral (Acanella spp.)
All Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa (CHCRT)
All Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa
(PHCRT)
EFH
Eggs and larvae: the water column from
the shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ
down to a depth of 490 ft. (150 m)
Juvenile/adults: all of the bottom habitat
from the shoreline to a depth of 330 ft.
(100 m)
Eggs and larvae: the water column and
associated outer reef slopes between
1,805 and 2,295 ft. (550 and 700 m)
Juvenile/adults: the outer reef slopes at
depths between 985 and 2,295 ft. (300
and 700 m)
HAPC
All banks in the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands with summits
less than or equal to 100 ft. (30
m) from the surface
No HAPC designated for
deepwater shrimp.
EFH has also been designated for three
beds known for black corals in the Main
Hawaiian Islands between Milolii and
South Point on the Big Island, the Auau
Channel, and the southern border of
Kauai
For Black Corals, the Auau
Channel has been identified as
a HAPC
EFH for Precious Corals is confined to
six known precious coral beds located off
Keahole Point, Makapuu, Kaena Point,
Wespac bed, Brooks Bank, and 180
Fathom Bank
Includes the Makapuu bed,
Wespac bed, Brooks Banks bed
EFH for the Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS
includes the water column and all benthic
substrate to a depth of 330 ft. (100 m)
from the shoreline to the outer limit of the
EEZ
Note: fm = fathoms
Source: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009a and b
3‐17 Includes all no-take Marine
Protected Areas identified in the
CRE-FMP, all Pacific remote
islands, as well as numerous
existing Marine Protected
Areas, research sites, and coral
reef habitats throughout the
western Pacific
Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment To reduce the complexity and the number of EFH identifications required for individual species and life stages, the WPFRMC has designated EFH for bottomfish assemblages pursuant to Section 600.805(b) of 62 F.R. 66551. The species complex designations include deep‐slope bottomfish (shallow water and deep water) and seamount groundfish complexes. The designation of these complexes is based on the ecological relationships among species and their preferred habitat. These species complexes are grouped by the known depth distributions of individual BMUS throughout the Western Pacific Region (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1986a). Given the uncertainty concerning the life histories and habitat requirements of many BMUS, the WPFRMC designated EFH for adult and juvenile bottomfish as the water column and bottom habitat extending from the shoreline to a depth of 219 fm (400 m) encompassing the steep drop‐offs and high‐
relief habitats that are important for bottomfish throughout the Western Pacific Region (Table 3‐3). The eggs and larvae of all BMUS are pelagic, floating at the surface until hatching and subject thereafter to advection by the prevailing ocean currents. There have been few taxonomic studies of these life stages of snappers and groupers. Presently, few larvae can be identified to species. As snapper and grouper larvae are rarely collected in plankton surveys, it is extremely difficult to study their distribution. Because of the existing scientific uncertainty about the distribution of the eggs and larvae of bottomfish, the WPFRMC designated the water column extending from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the EEZ to a depth of 219 fm (400 m) as EFH for bottomfish eggs and larvae throughout the Western Pacific Region (Table 3‐3). In the past, a large‐scale foreign seamount groundfish fishery extended throughout the southeastern reaches of the northern Hawaiian Ridge. The seamount groundfish complex consists of three species (pelagic armorheads, alfonsins, and ratfish). These species dwell at 109 to 328 fm (200 to 600 m) on the submarine slopes and summits of seamounts. A collapse of the seamount groundfish stocks has resulted in a greatly reduced yield in recent years. Although a moratorium on the harvest of the seamount groundfish within the EEZ has been in place since 1986, no substantial recovery of the stocks has been observed. Historically, there has been no domestic seamount groundfish fishery. The life histories and distributional patterns of seamount groundfish are also poorly understood. Data are lacking on the effects of oceanographic variability on migration and recruitment of individual management unit species. On the basis of the best available data, the WPFRMC designated the EFH for the adult life stage of the seamount groundfish complex as all waters and bottom habitat bounded by latitude 29°–35° N and longitude 171° east (E)–179° W between 44 to 328 fm (80 to 600 m). EFH for eggs, larvae, and juveniles is the epipelagic zone (0200 m) of all waters bounded by latitude 29°–35° N and longitude 171° E–179° W. This EFH designation encompasses the Hancock Seamounts, part of the northern extent of the Hawaiian Ridge, located 1,500 nm northwest of Honolulu. 3.2.1.2
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
On the basis of the known distribution and habitat requirements of adult bottomfish, the WPFRMC designated all escarpments/slopes between 22 to 153 fm (40 to 280 m) throughout the Western Pacific Region, including the Hawaii Archipelago, as bottomfish HAPC (Table 3‐3). In addition, the WPFRMC designated the three known areas of juvenile opakapaka habitat (two off Oahu and one off Molokai) as HAPC. The basis for this designation is the ecological function that these areas provide, the rarity of the habitat, and the susceptibility of these areas to human‐induced environmental degradation. Off Oahu, juvenile snappers occupy a flat, open bottom of primarily soft substrate in depths ranging from 22 to 40 fm (40 to 73 m). This habitat is quite different from that utilized by adult snappers. Surveys suggest that 3‐18 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment the preferred habitat of juvenile opakapaka in the waters around Hawaii represents only a small fraction of the total habitat at the appropriate depths. Areas of flat featureless bottom have typically been thought of as providing low‐value fishery habitat. It is possible that juvenile snappers occur in other habitat types, but in such low densities that they have yet to be observed. The recent discovery of concentrations of juvenile snappers in relatively shallow water and featureless bottom habitat indicates the need for more research to help identify, map, and study nursery habitat for juvenile snapper. 3.2.2
3.2.2.1
CRUSTACEANS MANAGEMENT UNIT
Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat
Spiny lobsters are found throughout the Indo‐Pacific region. All spiny lobsters in the Western Pacific Region belong to the family Palinuridae. The slipper lobsters belong to the closely related family Scyllaridae. There are 13 species of the genus Panulirus distributed in the tropical and subtropical Pacific between 35° N and 35° south (S). Panulirus penicillatus is the most widely distributed, the other three species are absent from the waters of many island nations of the region. The Hawaiian spiny lobster (P. marginatus) is endemic to Hawaii and the Johnston Atoll and was the primary species of interest in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) fishery, the principal commercial lobster fishery in the Western Pacific Region. This fishery also targeted the slipper lobster Scyllarides squammosus. Three other species of lobster—pronghorn spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus), ridgeback slipper lobster (Scyllarides haanii), and Chinese slipper lobster (Parribacus antarcticus)—and the Kona crab (Ranina ranina), were taken in low numbers in the NWHI fishery. In Hawaii, adult spiny lobsters are typically found on rocky substrate in well‐protected areas, in crevices, and under rocks. Unlike many other species of Panulirus, the juveniles and adults of P. marginatus are not found in separate habitats apart from one another. Juvenile P. marginatus recruit directly to adult habitat; they do not utilize a separate shallow‐water nursery habitat apart from the adults as do many palinurid lobsters. Similarly, juvenile and adult P. penicillatus also share the same habitat. Panulirus marginatus is found seaward of the reefs and within the lagoons and atolls of the islands. The reported depth distribution of P. marginatus is from 10 to 109 fm (3 to 200 m), however, it is most abundant in waters of 49 fm (90 m) or less. Large adult spiny lobsters are captured at depths as shallow as 10 ft. (3 m). In the southwestern Pacific, spiny lobsters are typically found in association with coral reefs. Coral reefs provide shelter as well as a diverse and abundant supply of food items. Panulirus penicillatus inhabits the rocky shelters in the windward surf zones of oceanic reefs and moves on to the reef flat at night to forage. Very little is known about the planktonic phase of the phyllosoma larvae of Panulirus marginatus. The oceanographic and physiographic features that result in the retention of lobster larvae within the Hawaii Archipelago are poorly understood. Evidence suggests that fine‐scale oceanographic features, such as eddies and currents, serve to retain phyllosoma larvae within the Hawaiian Island chain. While there is a wide range of lobster densities between banks within the NWHI, the spatial distribution of phyllosoma larvae appears to be homogenous. To reduce the complexity and the number of EFH identifications required for individual species and life stages, the WPFRMC has designated EFH for crustacean species assemblages (Crustacean Management Unit Species [CMUS]). The species complex designations are spiny and slipper lobsters and Kona crab. 3‐19 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment The designation of these complexes is based on the ecological relationships among species and their preferred habitat. At present, there is not enough data on the relative productivity of different habitats of CMUS to develop EFH designations based on habitat specific growth rates, reproduction or survival rates, and habitat specific production rates. Although there is a paucity of data on the preferred depth distribution of phyllosoma larvae in Hawaii, the depth distribution of phyllosoma larvae of other species of Panulirus common in the Indo‐Pacific region has been documented. Later stages of panulirid phyllosoma larvae have been found at depths between 44 and 66 fm (80 and 120 m). For these reasons, the WPFRMC designated EFH for spiny lobster larvae is the water column from the shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ down to a depth of 82 fm (150 m) throughout the Western Pacific Region. The EFH for juvenile and adult spiny lobster is designated as the bottom habitat from the shoreline to a depth of 55 fm (100 m) throughout the Western Pacific Region (Table 3‐3). The EFH for deepwater shrimp eggs and larvae is designated as the water column and associated outer reef slopes between 301 and 383 fm (550 and 700 m), and the EFH for juveniles and adults is designated as the outer reef slopes at depths between 164 and 383 fm (300 and 700 m) (Table 3‐3). 3.2.2.2
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
Research indicates that banks with summits less than 16 fm (30 m) support successful recruitment of juvenile spiny lobster while those with summit deeper than 16 fm (30 m) do not. For this reason, the WPFRMC has designated all banks in the NWHI with summits less than 16 tm (30 m) as HAPC (Table 3‐3). The basis for designating these areas as HAPC is the ecological function provided, the rarity of the habitat type, and the susceptibility of these areas to human‐induced environmental degradation. The complex relationship between recruitment sources and sinks of spiny lobsters is poorly understood. The WPFRMC feels that in the absence of a better understanding of these relationships, the adoption of a precautionary approach to protect and conserve habitat is warranted. The relatively long pelagic larval phase for palinurids results in very wide dispersal of spiny lobster larvae. Palinurid larvae are transported up to 2,000 nm by prevailing ocean currents. Because phyllosoma larvae are transported by the prevailing ocean currents outside of EEZ waters, the WPFRMC has identified habitat in these areas as “important habitat.” To date HAPC has not been identified or designated for deepwater shrimp. 3.2.3
3.2.3.1
PRECIOUS CORALS MANAGEMENT UNIT
Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat
In the Hawaiian Islands, precious coral beds have been found only in the deep interisland channels and off promontories at depths between 164 and 820 fm (300 and 1,500 m) and 16 and 55 fm (30 and 100 m) (see Appendix A for a complete listing). There are currently eight known beds of pink, gold, and bamboo corals including Keahole Point, Makapuu, Kaena Point, Wespac, Brooks Bank, and 180 Fathom Bank; and two recently discovered beds, one near French Frigate Shoals in the NWHI, and a second on Cross Seamount, approximately 150 nm south of Oahu. The approximate areas of six of these eight beds have been determined. These beds are small; two of them have an area greater than 0.4 mi2. (1 km2), and the largest is 1.4 mi2 (3.6 km2) in size. The Keahole Bed off Hawaii’s Kona coast, however, is substantially larger than originally thought. Scientists and industry are currently assessing its actual size. Initial calculations appear to increase its size twenty‐fold. There are also three known major black coral beds in the Western Pacific Region, in addition to several minor beds (Parrish and Baco 2007; Grigg 1998). Most of these are located in Hawaii’s state waters (0 to 3 nm). However, the largest (the Auau 3‐20 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Channel Bed) extends into federal waters. Figure 3‐7 depicts the precious coral fisheries fishing areas of the Hawaiian Islands OPAREA. Source: Marine Resources Assessment for Hawaiian Islands Operating Area, Final Report, December 2005 Figure 3‐7: Precious Coral Fisheries Fishing Areas of the Hawaiian Islands OPAREA 3‐21 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Makapuu is the only bed that has been surveyed accurately enough to estimate maximum sustainable yield. The Wespac bed, located between Necker and Nihoa Islands in the NWHI, has been set aside for use in baseline studies and as a possible reproductive reserve. The harvesting of precious corals is prohibited in this area. Within the Western Pacific Region, the only directed fishery for precious corals has occurred in the Hawaiian Islands. At present, there is no commercial harvesting of precious corals in the EEZ, but several firms have expressed interest. Precious corals are non–reef building and inhabit depth zones below the euphotic zone. They are found on solid substrate in areas that are swept relatively clean by moderate‐to‐strong (> 25 cm/second [s]) bottom currents. Strong currents help prevent the accumulation of sediments, which would smother young coral colonies and prevent settlement of new larvae. Precious coral yields tend to be higher in areas of shell sandstone, limestone, and basaltic or metamorphic rock with a limestone veneer. Precious corals may be divided into deep‐ and shallow‐water species. Deep‐water precious corals are generally found between 191 and 820 fm (350 and 1,500 m) and include pink coral (Corallium secundum), gold coral (Gerardia spp. and Parazoanthus spp.), and bamboo coral (Lepidisis olapa). Shallow water species occur between 16 and 55 fm (30 and 100 m) and consist primarily of three species of black coral: Antipathes dichotoma, Antipathes grandis, and Antipathes ulex. In Hawaii, Antipathes dichotoma accounts for around 90 percent of the commercial harvest of black coral, and virtually all of it is harvested in state waters. Black corals are most frequently found under vertical drop‐offs. Such features are common off Kauai and Maui in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), suggesting that their abundance is related to suitable habitat. Off Oahu, many submarine terraces that otherwise would be suitable habitat for black corals are covered with sediments. In the MHI, the lower depth range of A. dichotoma and A. grandis coincides with the top of the thermocline (ca. 100 m; Grigg 1993). Pink, bamboo, and gold corals all have planktonic larval stages and sessile adult stages. Larvae settle on solid substrate where they form colonial branching colonies. The length of the larval stage of all species of precious corals is unknown. Like other cnidarians, black corals have life cycles that include both asexual and sexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction (budding) builds the colony by adding more living tissue that, in turn, secretes more skeleton. Regular growth rings laid down as the skeleton thickens can be used to estimate the age of the colony. Sexual reproduction involves the production of eggs and sperm to create young that can disperse and settle new areas. Polyps are either male or female, but a single colony may be hermaphroditic, with both male and female polyps. The larval stage, called a planula, can drift with currents until a suitable surface is found. Once the larva settles, it metamorphoses into a polyp form and secretes skeletal material that attaches it to the seafloor. Then it begins budding, creating more polyps that will form a young colony. Asexual reproduction can also occur naturally by fragmentation of branch ends. In one Hawaiian species that have been studied (A. dichotoma), the colony may grow about 2.5 in. (6.4 cm) per year. Reproductive maturity may be reached after 10 to 12 years and reproduction may occur annually. A large 6‐ft. (1.8 m) tall coral tree is estimated to be between 30 and 40 years old; a colony life span may be 70 years. Some species may live even longer (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009a). On Hawaii's deep reef slopes and throughout the world, black corals host unique communities of marine life. Their tree‐like colonies create habitat for crustaceans, bivalves, and fish. Each coral may host a different combination of species. Some residents are commensals—dependent partners that live only on the black coral. Many species in this deep reef community are new to science. The habitat sustaining 3‐22 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment precious corals is generally believed to be in good condition. However, an alien species called snowflake coral, Carijoa riisei, has recently begun smothering native deep reef sea life including precious corals. In 2001 deepwater surveys in the Auau Channel found a maximum impact between 38 and 60 fm (70 and 110 m) where more than 50 percent of black corals had snowflake coral overgrowth (Kahng and Grigg 2005). A second survey in 2006 reexamined conditions in the Auau Channel and found that the impact of snowflake corals had not worsened and it was possible that conditions in some areas had stabilized or improved. This led researchers to conclude that the ecological impact of snowflake coral on black corals may have stabilized or possibly abated slightly (Kahng 2007). To reduce the complexity and the number of EFH identifications required for individual species and life stages, the WPRFMC designated EFH for precious coral assemblages (Precious Coral Management Unit Species [PCMUS]). The species complex designations are deep‐ and shallow‐water complexes (Table 3‐3). The designation of these complexes is based on the ecological relationships among the individual species and their preferred habitat. The WPRFMC considered using the known depth range of individual PCMUS to designate EFH, but rejected this alternative because of the rarity of the occurrence of suitable habitat conditions. Instead, the WPRFMC designated the six known beds of precious corals as EFH. The WPRFMC believes that the narrow EFH designation will facilitate the consultation process. In addition, the WPRFMC designated three black coral beds in the MHI—between Milolii and South Point on Hawaii, Auau Channel between Maui and Lanai, and the southern border of Kauai—as EFH. 3.2.3.2
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
The WPRFMC designated three of the six precious coral beds—Makapuu, Wespac and Brooks Bank—as habitat areas of particular concern. Makapuu bed was designated as HAPC because of the ecological function it provides, the rarity of the habitat type, and its sensitivity to human‐induced environmental degradation. The potential commercial importance and the amount of scientific information that has been collected on Makapuu bed were also considered. Wespac bed was designated as HAPC because of the ecological function it provides and the rarity of the habitat type. Its refugia status was also considered. Brooks Bank was designated HAPC because of the ecological function it provides and the rarity of the habitat type. Its possible importance as foraging habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal was also considered. For black corals, the WPRFMC designated the Auau Channel as HAPC because of the ecological function it provides, the rarity of the habitat type, and its sensitivity to human‐induced environmental degradation. Its commercial importance was also considered. 3.2.4
CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT UNIT
In designating EFH for Coral Reef Ecosystem (CRE) MUS, the WPRFMC used an approach similar to one used by both the South Atlantic and the Pacific Fishery Management Councils. Using this approach, MUS are linked to specific habitat “composites” (e.g., sand, live coral, seagrass beds, mangrove, open ocean) for each life history stage, consistent with the depth of the ecosystem to 50 fm (91 m) and to the limit of the EEZ. Except for several of the major coral reef associated species, very little is known about the life histories, habitat utilization patterns, food habits, or spawning behavior of most coral reef associated species. For this reason, the WPRFMC, through the CRE FMP, designated EFH using a two‐tiered approach based on the division of MUS into the CHCRT and Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa (PHCRT) categories. This is also consistent with the use of habitat composites. 3‐23 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 3.2.4.1
3.2.4.1.1
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Coral Reef Ecosystems Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa Management Unit
Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat
In the first tier, EFH has been identified for species that are (a) currently being harvested in state and federal waters and for which some fishery information is available and (b) likely to be targeted in the near future based on historical catch data. Appendix B summarizes the habitat types used by CHCRT species. To reduce the complexity and the number of EFH identifications required for individual species and life stages, the WPRFMC has designated EFH for species assemblages pursuant to 50 C.F.R. 600.815 (a)(2)(ii)(E). The designation of these complexes is based on the ecological relationships among species and their preferred habitat. These species complexes are grouped by the known depth distributions of individual MUS. The EFH designations for CHCRT in Hawaii are summarized in Table 3‐3. 3.2.4.1.2
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
Because of the already‐noted lack of scientific data, the WPRFMC considered locations that are known to support populations of Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS and meet NMFS criteria for HAPC. Although not one of the criteria established by NMFS, the WPRFMC considered designating areas that are already protected—for example, wildlife refuges—as HAPC. The Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS HAPCs for Hawaii identified in Table 3‐4 have met at least one of the four criteria listed above, or the fifth criterion (i.e., protected areas) identified by the WPRFMC. However, a great deal of life history work needs to be done in order to adequately identify the extent of HAPCs and link them to particular species or life stages. 3.2.4.2
3.2.4.2.1
Coral Reef Ecosystems Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa Management Unit
Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat
EFH has also been designated for the second tier, PHCRT. These taxa include thousands of species encompassing almost all coral reef fauna and flora. However, there is very little scientific knowledge about the life histories and habitat requirements of the thousands of species of organisms that compose these taxa. In fact, a large percentage of these biota have not been described by science. Therefore, the WPRFMC has used the precautionary approach in designating EFH for PHCRT so that enough habitat is protected to sustain managed species. Appendix B summarizes the habitat types used by PHCRT species. The designation of EFH for PHCRT in Hawaii is summarized in Table 3‐3. As with CHCRT, the WPRFMC has designated EFH for species assemblages pursuant to the federal regulations cited above. 3.2.4.2.2
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
Because of the aforementioned lack of scientific data, the WPRFMC considered locations that are known to support populations of Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS and meet NMFS criteria for HAPC. Although not one of the criteria established by NMFS, the Council considered designating areas that are already protected—for example, wildlife refuges—as HAPC. The Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS HAPCs for Hawaii identified in Table 3‐4 have met at least one of the four criteria listed above, or the fifth criterion (i.e., protected areas) identified by the WPRFMC. However, a great deal of life history work needs to be done in order to adequately identify the extent of HAPCs and link them to particular species or life stages. 3‐24 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 3‐4: Coral Reef Ecosystem HAPC Designations in the Hawaii Archipelago NWHI
All substrate 0–10 fm
Laysan: All substrate 0–50 fm
Midway: All substrate 0–50 fm
French Frigate Shoals: All substrate
0–50 fm
Main Hawaiian Islands
Kaula Island (entire bank)
Niihau (Lehua Island)
Kauai (Kaliu Point)
Oahu
Pupukea (MLCD)
Shark’s Cove (MLCD)
Waikiki (MLCD)
Makapuu Head/Tide Pool Reef
Area
Kaneohe Bay
Kaena Point
Kahe Reef
Maui
Molokini
Olowalo Reef Area
Honolua-Mokuleia Bay (MLCD)
Ahihiki Kinau Natural Area
Reserve
Molokai (south shore reefs)
Lanai
Halope Bay
Manele Bay
Five Needles
Hawaii
Lapakahi Bay State Park (MLCD)
Puako Bay and Reef (MLCD)
Kealakekua
Waialea Bay (MLCD)
Kawaihae Harbor-Old Kona
Airport (MLCD)
Additional Areas
All Long-term Research Sites
All CRAMP sites
Rarity
of
Habitat
Ecological
Function
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Susceptibility
to Human
Impact
Likelihood of
Developmental
Impacts
Existing
Protective
Status
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notes: NWHI = Northwest Hawaiian Islands, fm = fathoms, MLCD = Marine Life Conservation District, CRAMP = Coral Reef
Assessment and Monitoring Program.
Source: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009a
3.2.4.3
3.2.4.3.1
Pelagic Management Unit
Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat
The WPRFMC has used the best available scientific information to describe EFH in text and tables that provide information on the biological requirements for each life stage (egg, larvae, juvenile, adult) of all Pelagic Management Unit Species (PMUS). Careful judgment was used in determining the extent of the EFH that should be designated to ensure that sufficient habitat in good condition is available to maintain a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem. Because there are 3‐25 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment large gaps in scientific knowledge about the life histories and habitat requirements of many MUS in the Western Pacific Region, the WPRFMC adopted a precautionary approach in designating EFH to ensure that enough habitats are protected to sustain managed species. To reduce the complexity and the number of EFH identifications required for individual species and life stages, the WPRFMC has designated EFH for pelagic species assemblages pursuant to Section 600.805(b) of 62 Federal Register (F.R.) 66551. The species complex designations for the PMUS are temperate species, tropical species, sharks, and squid (see Table 3‐5). The designation of these complexes is based on the ecological relationships among species and their preferred habitat. The marketable species complex has been subdivided into tropical and temperate assemblages. The temperate species complex includes those PMUS that are found in greater abundance in higher latitudes such as swordfish and bigeye, bluefin, and albacore tuna. Because of the uncertainty about the life histories and habitat utilization patterns of many PMUS, the WPRFMC has taken a precautionary approach by adopting a 547 fm (1,000 m) depth as the lower bound of EFH for PMUS. Although many of the PMUS are epipelagic, bigeye tuna are abundant at depths in excess of 219 fm (400 m) and swordfish have been tracked to depths of 437 fm (800 m). One thousand meters is the lower bound of the mesopelagic zone. The vertically migrating mesopelagic fishes and squids associated with the deep scattering layer are important prey organisms for PMUS and are seldom abundant below 547 fm (1,000 m). This designation is also based on anecdotal reports of fishermen that PMUS aggregate over raised bottom topographical features as deep as 1,000 fm (2,000 m) or more. This belief is supported by research that indicates seabed features such as seamounts exert a strong influence over the superadjacent water column. For example, studies show that mixing occurs mostly at oceanic boundaries along continental slopes, above seamounts and mid‐ocean ridges, at fronts, and in the mixed layer at the sea surface (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009b). Mixing results in areas of high primary productivity which in turn become foraging ‘hotspots’ for pelagic species including marine mammals and tunas. The eggs and larvae of all teleost PMUS are pelagic. They are slightly buoyant when first spawned, are spread throughout the mixed layer and are subject to advection by the prevailing ocean currents. Because the eggs and larvae of the PMUS are found distributed throughout the tropical (and in summer, the subtropical) epipelagic zone, EFH for these life stages has been designated as the epipelagic zone (~200 m) from the shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ. The only generic variation in this distribution pattern occurs in the northern latitudes of the Hawaii EEZ, which extends farther into the temperate zone than any other EEZ covered by the plan. In these higher latitudes, eggs and larvae are rarely found during the winter months (November to February). See Appendix B for additional details on the life history and habitat utilization patterns of individual PMUS. 3.2.4.3.2
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
The WPRFMC designated the water column down to 547 fm (1,000 m) that lie above all seamounts and banks within the EEZ shallower than 1,000 fm (2,000 m) as HAPC for PMUS. In determining whether a type or area of EFH should be designated as a HAPC, one or more of the following criteria established by NMFS must be met: (a) the ecological function provided by the habitat is important; (b) the habitat is sensitive to human‐induced environmental degradation; (c) development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type; or (d) the habitat type is rare. However, it is important to note that if an area meets only one of the HAPC criteria, it will not necessarily be designated a HAPC. 3‐26 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 3‐4: Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Area of Particular Concern designated by Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Species Complex
EFH
HAPC
Temperate species
Albacore (Thunnus alalunga)
Bigeyetuna (Thunnus obesus)
Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)
Mackerel (Scomber spp.)
Pomfret (family Bramidae)
Striped marlin (Tetrapurus audax)
Swordfish (Xiphias gladius)
Tropical species
Black marlin (Makaira indica)
Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans)
Dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor)
Frigate and bullet tunas (Auxis thazard, A. rochei)
Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis)
Mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus, C. equiselas)
Ono (Acanthocybium solandri)
Opah (Lampris spp.)
Sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus)
Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis)
Slender tunas (Allothunnus fallai)
Spearfish (Tetrapturus spp.)
Yellowfin (Thunnus albacares)
Sharks
Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus )
Blue shark (Prionace glauca)
Thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus)
Longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus)
Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus)
Pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus)
Salmon shark (Lamna ditropis)
Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus)
Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis)
Eggs and larvae: the
(epipelagic zone) water
column down to a depth of 200
m (100 fm) from the shoreline
to the outer limit of the EEZ
Juvenile/adults: the water
column down to a depth of
1,000 m (500 fm) from the
shoreline to the outer limit of
the EEZ
The water column from the
surface down to a depth of
1,000 m (500 fm) above all
seamounts and banks with
summits shallower than 2,000
m (1,000 fm) within the EEZ
Squid
Diamondback squid (Thysanoteuthis rhombus)
Neon flying squid (Ommastrephes bartamii)
Purple flying squid (Sthenoteuthis oualaniensis)
Notes: EFH = Essential Fish Habitat, HAPC = Habitat Area of Particular Concern, EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone, m = meters,
fm = fathoms
Source: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009b
The EFH relevance of topographic features deeper than 547 fm (1,000 m) is due to the influence they have on the overlying mesopelagic zone. These deeper features themselves do not constitute EFH, but the waters from the surface to 547 fm (1,000 m) deep superadjacent to these features are designated as HAPC within the EFH. The 1,000 fm (2,000 m) depth contour captures the summits of most seamounts 3‐27 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment mentioned by fishers, and all banks within the EEZ waters under the WPRFMC’s jurisdiction. The basis for designating these areas as HAPC is the ecological function provided, the rarity of the habitat type, the susceptibility of these areas to human‐induced environmental degradation, and proposed activities that may stress the habitat type. Because the PMUS are highly migratory, the areas outside the EEZ in the Western Pacific Region are designated by the WPRFMC as “important habitat” because they provide essential spawning, breeding, and foraging habitat. 3.3
DESCRIPTION OF HABITATS
The HSTT Study Area covers a range of marine habitats which support a myriad of fish and shellfish communities. The intent of this section is to consolidate the EFH designations from each of the FMC regions into larger primary habitat types so that the descriptions can be managed in a manner that is more conducive to analyzing the Navy’s activities across a large area and across multiple Fishery Management Councils. Henceforth, the term Study Area will apply to the portion of the HSTT Study Area within each of the Fishery Management Council regions. Waters of the Study Area include shoreline habitats between the mean high and low water, bottom habitats below the mean high water, and the overlying water column. For shore and bottom habitats, the habitat classification system described herein is a modified version of the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). The structure of the classification system allows it to be used at any of several hierarchical levels. The classification employs five system names, eight subsystem names, 11 class names, 28 subclass names, and an unspecified number of dominance types. The modified classification system starts at the subsystem level (e.g., intertidal shores/subtidal bottoms) and focuses analysis on a modified class level (e.g., soft shores/bottoms, hard shores/bottoms) differentiating non‐living substrates from the living structures on the substrate. Living structures on the substrate are termed biogenic habitats, and include wetland plants, submerged aquatic vegetation (attached macroalgae and rooted vascular plants), sedentary invertebrate beds, and reefs (refer to relevant section for detailed description). The ecological functions of the substrate and biogenic habitat for managed species and life stages are implied by their presence, extent and quality within an area. Information documenting habitat presence within broad geographic areas is widely available, whereas data on spatial extent and quality are sparse and inconsistently classified (refer to subsequent habitat sections for details). Ideally, this assessment would map every possible combination of EFH and stressor footprint using worst case scenarios (e.g., entire stressor footprint within EFH distribution). However, not all EFH is officially mapped, and there are nearly 1,000 combinations of species, life stages and fishery management council described in Pacific Fishery Management Council (1998; 2011a, b) and Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (1979; 1981; 1986a, b; 2001; 2009). There are also approximately 150 Navy activities including multiple stressors. Establishing a proper baseline for impact assessment will be primarily qualitative for habitats with sparse and inconsistent spatial data (noted in respective habitat section), and quantitative in some areas. The potential impacts of underwater detonations on marine habitats will be assessed according to size of charge (net explosive weight), height above the bottom, substrate types in the area, and equations linking all these factors. The impacts of underwater explosions vary with the bottom substrate type. The analysis to determine the potential level of disturbance of military expended materials on marine substrates assumes that the impact of the expended material on the seafloor is twice the size of its footprint. This assumption would more accurately reflect the potential disturbance to soft‐bottom habitats, but could overestimate disturbance of hard‐bottom habitats. For this analysis, 3‐28 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment high‐explosive munitions were treated in the same manner as non‐explosive practice munitions in terms of impacts on the seafloor, to be conservative, even though high‐explosive ordnance would normally explode in the upper water column, and only fragments of the ordnance would settle on the seafloor. 3.3.1
WATER COLUMN
The flow and quality of water in the water column are key factors linking fish, habitat, and people. Water column properties that may affect fisheries resources include temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus), and chlorophyll a (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009). Other factors, such as depth, pH, water velocity and movement, and water clarity, also affect the distribution of aquatic organisms. The waters of the Study Area extend from coastal draining rivers to open ocean waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. All aquatic species inhabit the water column, though water column habitats are somewhat independent of shore and bottom features. Flows of water, or lack thereof, are affected by large‐scale watershed characteristics, global climate gradients, and earth rotation relative to north and south poles (i.e., tides). Water column parameters referenced in EFH and HAPCs descriptions include waters (e.g., offshore, nearshore, estuarine), vertical layers (e.g., pelagic, bottom, thermocline), and salinity zones. Any reference to waters (e.g., all estuaries) implies the inclusion of all shore and bottom habitats, unless selected habitats are implied (e.g., pelagic/demersal species; Appendix B). Waters characterizing the Study Area vary along the continuum from coastal rivers to offshore ocean waters. Ocean waters include the water column seaward of estuarine salinities (less than 30 practical salinity units [psu]). The offshore ocean is defined herein as the water column seaward of the neritic zone (Figure 3‐8). Overlap occurs between the neritic and estuarine systems where lower salinity plumes enter continental shelf waters. Estuarine waters occupy a salinity range of 0.5 to 30 psu and include bays, inlets, sounds, tidal creeks, and coastal rivers. The freshwater portions of coastal rivers flowing into estuaries are less than 0.5 psu. Offshore, nearshore, and estuarine waters occur within all fishery management council regions. 3.3.1.1
Currents, Circulation Patterns, and Water Masses
In ocean waters, gyres and oceanic currents create physical and chemical dynamics that influence the distribution of organisms. Ocean circulation in the Study Area is dominated by the clockwise motion of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre (Tomczak and Godfrey 2003c). The North Pacific Subtropical Gyre occurs between the equator and 50° N and is defined to the north by the North Pacific Current, to the east by the California Current, to the south by the North Equatorial Current, and to the west by the Kuroshio Current (Tomczak and Godfrey 2003c) (Figure 3‐8). The North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, like all the ocean’s large subtropical gyres, has extremely low rates of primary productivity (Valiela 1995) caused by a persistent thermocline (a distinct layer of water in which temperature changes more rapidly with depth than it does above or below) that prevents the vertical mixing of water. Thermocline layers are present in the water column at varying depths throughout the world’s oceans; however, in most areas, particularly nearshore, they are broken down seasonally, allowing nutrient rich waters below the thermocline to replenish surface waters and fuel primary production. 3‐29 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐8: Three‐dimensional Representation of a Continental Margin and Abyssal Zone Surface currents are horizontal movements of water primarily driven by the drag of the wind over the sea surface. Wind‐driven circulation dominates in the upper 330 ft. (100 m) of the water column and therefore drives circulation over continental shelves (Hunter et al. 2007). Surface currents of the Pacific Ocean include equatorial, circumpolar, eastern boundary, and western boundary currents. Major surface currents within the Study Area include the California Current, California Countercurrent, and the Southern California Eddy in the SOCAL OPAREA and the North Equatorial Current, North Hawaiian Ridge Current, and Hawaii Lee Current in the Hawaii OPAREA (Figure 3‐9 and Figure 3‐10). The Southern California portion of the Study Area is dominated by the California Current System (Figure 3‐8). The California Current System includes four major currents: the California Current, the California Undercurrent, the Southern California Countercurrent, and the Southern California Eddy (Batteen et al. 2003). The California Current flows south along the coasts of Washington, Oregon, California, and the Baja Peninsula, where it joins the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre via the westward flowing North Equatorial Current (Bograd 2004). The California Current flows south, about 621 mi. (1,000 km) offshore, along the entire coast of California (Batteen et al. 2003) and carries cold, low salinity water with high dissolved oxygen and high nutrient concentrations southward (Gelpi and Norris 2008; Tomczak and Godfrey 2003b). The California Current flows parallel to the continental borderland along Southern California at an average current speed of 0.49 ft./s (0.15 m/s) (Hickey 1992). 3‐30 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment The Hawaii portion of the Study Area is influenced by the North Pacific Current, North Equatorial Current, North Hawaiian Ridge Current, and Hawaii Lee Current (Figure 3‐9). The North Pacific Current is an eastward flowing current that forms the upper boundary of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre (Tomczak and Godfrey 2003b). The North Pacific Current in the eastern North Pacific splits at approximately 45–50° N and forms the northward flowing Alaska Current and the southward flowing California Current. The North Equatorial Current is a westward flowing current that splits at the Hawaiian Islands; one branch travels north along the Hawaiian Ridge to form the North Hawaiian Ridge Current (Itano and Holland 2000). The North Hawaiian Ridge Current turns and continues westward at the tip of the Hawaiian Ridge (Qiu et al. 1997). The Hawaiian Lee Current occurs on the west side of the Hawaiian Islands and travels east toward the Islands (Chavanne et al. 2002). As the Hawaiian Lee Current approaches the Hawaiian Islands, it appears to form a counterclockwise gyre centered at 20.5° N and a clockwise gyre centered at 19° N (Chavanne et al. 2002; Flament et al. 2009). The latter, clockwise gyre merges with the North Equatorial Current in the south (Chavanne et al. 2002; Flament et al. 2009). The North Equatorial Current is primarily driven by the northeast and southeast trade winds and therefore flows westward (Figure 3‐9). This current is strongest during winter, particularly in February when the trade winds are also the strongest. The North Equatorial Current flows between 8° N and 15° N with an average velocity less than 1.0 ft. per second (0.3 m per second) (Tomczak and Godfrey 2003b; Wolanski et al. 2003). The North Equatorial Current splits at the Hawaiian Islands; one branch travels north and the other continues west. The westward flowing branch of the North Equatorial Current approaches Japan and splits again, forming the southward flowing Mindanao Current and the northward flowing Kuroshio Current. 3‐31 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐9: Open Ocean Portions of the Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Study Area 3‐32 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐10: California Current and Countercurrent circulation in the Southern California Bight
3‐33 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐11: Surface Circulation in the Hawaiian Islands 3‐34 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 3.3.1.2
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Water Column Characteristics and Processes
Seawater is made up of a number of components including gases, nutrients, dissolved compounds, particulate matter (solid compounds such as sand, marine organisms, and feces), and trace metals (Garrison 1998). Seawater characteristics are primarily determined by temperature and the gases and solids dissolved in it. Sea surface temperature varies considerably across the Pacific Ocean, from season to season and from day to night. In the inland and open ocean Southern California portions of the Study Area, sea surface temperature ranges from approximately 54° Fahrenheit (F) (12° Celsius [C]) in winter to 70°F (21°C) in summer (Bograd et al. 2000). The coldest sea surface temperatures typically occur in February, while the warmest temperatures typically occur in September. In the Hawaii open ocean portion of the Study Area, sea surface temperature ranges from 47°F (8°C) in the North Pacific Current to 86°F (30°C) in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 2009a) (Table 3‐6). Table 3‐5: Sea Surface Temperature Range of the Study Area Region
Sea Surface
Temperature °F (°C)
Longitude
Latitude
California Current
137°W to 117°W
25°N to 49°N
51 to 69 (11 to 21)
Insular Pacific-Hawaiian
180°W to 155°W
19°N to 30°N
77 to 86 (25 to 30)
North Pacific Transition Zone
130°E to 150°W
32°N to 42°N
47 to 71 (8 to 22)
North Pacific Subtropical Gyre
130°E to 150°W
6°N to 37°N
64 to 85 (18 to 29)
Sea surface temperature and nutrients are also influenced by long‐term climatic conditions including El Niño, La Niña, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and climate change. The recurring El Niño pattern is one of the strongest in the ocean atmosphere system (Gergis and Fowler 2009) and El Niño events result in significantly warmer water in the tropical Pacific. Upwelling of cold nutrient rich water along the coasts of North and South America is drastically reduced. La Niña is the companion phase of El Niño. La Niña events are characterized by stronger than average easterly trade winds that push the warm surface waters of the tropical Pacific to the west and enhance upwelling along the eastern Pacific coastline (Bograd et al. 2000). The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a long‐term climatic pattern with alternating warm and cool phases (Mantua and Hare 2002; Polovina et al. 1994). Every 20 to 30 years, the surface waters of the central and northern Pacific Ocean (20° N and poleward) shift several degrees from their average temperature. This oscillation affects primary production in the eastern Pacific Ocean and, consequently, affects organism abundance and distribution throughout the food chain. The Southern California portion of the Study Area experiences considerable changes during El Niño and La Niña events (Barber and Chavez 1983; Hayward 2000; Millán‐Núñez et al. 1997). During an El Niño event, atmospheric temperatures increase along with corresponding increases in coastal rainfall and sea surface temperatures, local sea level rise, strengthening of the California Countercurrent, and increase in local populations of warm water fishes. Concurrently, the trade winds weaken, upwelling and primary production decrease, and local kelp beds are severely impacted (Allen et al. 2002; Barber and Chavez 1983; Barber et al. 1985; Hayward 2000; Leet et al. 2001). During a La Niña event, opposite climactic patterns emerge. The trade winds strengthen, coastal upwelling and primary productivity increase, the California Current strengthens, and populations of cold water fishes increase. At the same time, a 3‐35 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment decrease in coastal rainfall (drought‐like conditions) and a decline in local sea level and sea surface temperatures are observed (Bograd et al. 2000). The Hawaii portion of the Study Area experiences El Niño events that result in decreased annual rainfall and increased sea surface temperature (Fletcher et al. 2002). The 10 driest years on record for the Hawaiian Islands are all associated with El Niño years. Coral bleaching events throughout the Hawaiian archipelago have been associated with El Niño events (Goreau and Hayes 1994). Coral bleaching is triggered by abnormally high sea surface temperatures which cause corals to lose their symbiotic (close association) algae which are what make corals colorful. Increased sea surface temperature resulting from climate change is now threatening coral reefs around the world (Spalding et al. 2007). During a La Niña event, conditions in the central Pacific can change. Typically, the trade winds strengthen, coastal upwelling and primary productivity increase, and populations of cold water fishes increase. Sea surface salinity within the Study Area ranges from 33 to 35 ppt (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2009; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 2009a). Within the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre and the North Pacific Current as they relate to the Hawaii portion of the Study Area, salinities decrease from north to south (Flament et al. 2009) and range from 34 to 35 ppt, and in the Southern California portion of the Study Area salinities are about 33 ppt (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2009). The density of seawater varies with salinity and temperature (Libes 1992), which leads to stratification (arranged in layers). There are typically 3 density layers in the water column of the ocean: a surface layer (0 to 655 ft. [0 to 200 m]), an intermediate layer (655–4,920 ft. [200–1,500 m]), and a deep layer (below 4,920 ft. [1,500 m]) (Castro and Huber 2007). Nutrients are chemicals or elements necessary to produce organic matter. Basic nutrients include dissolved nitrogen, phosphates, and silicates. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen occurs in ocean water as nitrates, nitrites, and ammonia, with nitrates as the dominant form. The nitrate concentration of the coastal waters within the Southern California portion of Study Area varies annually from 0.1 to 10.0 parts per billion (ppb) (0.1 to 10.0 micrograms per liter). The nitrate concentration of the coastal waters within the Hawaii portion of the Study Area varies are low ranging from approximately 0.1 to 0.4 ppb (0.1 to 0.4 micrograms per liter) with nitrate depletion occurring during the summer months down to depths of 820 ft. (250 m) (Johnson et al. 2010). 3.3.1.3
Bathymetry
This section provides a description of the bathymetry (water depth) of the Study Area. Given that the bathymetry of an area reflects the topography (surface features) of the seafloor, it is an important factor for understanding the potential impacts of Navy training and testing activities on the seafloor, the propagation of underwater sound, and species diversity. The discussion of bathymetry includes a general overview of the Study Area and a description of the bathymetry of Navy training and testing areas (Table 3‐6). The contour of the ocean floor as it descends from the shoreline has an important influence on the distribution of organisms, as well as the structure and function of marine ecosystems (Madden et al. 2009). The continental shelf and slope make up the continental margin of oceans, which is an extension of the continental crust. A representation of the benthic and pelagic zones of the oceans is shown in Figure 3‐7. The continental shelf extends seaward from shore with an average gradient of just 0.1 degree. The distance the shelf extends seaward varies from almost non‐existent to over 400 mi. (644 3‐36 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment km) in the certain areas, such as the Arctic shelf of Siberia (Pickard and Emery 1990). The average width of the continental shelf is approximately 40 mi. (64 km), and at the termination of the shelf, referred to as the shelf break, reaches a maximum depth of approximately 656 ft. (200 m) (Tomczak and Godfrey 2003a; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 2009b). Table 3‐6: Summary of Bathymetric Features within Important Navy Training and Testing Areas Range/Component
General Bathymetry1,2
Description
Range Complexes
SOCAL Range Complex
Located offshore of Southern
California and the Baja Peninsula
(Mexico).
Varying continental shelf width. Steep
continental slope. Numerous near surface
banks, seamounts, escarpments, canyons,
and basins characterize the bathymetry of
the OPAREA.
Silver Strand Training
Complex
Located on Silver Strand, a narrow,
sandy isthmus separating the San
Diego Bay from the Pacific Ocean.
Shallow waters of San Diego Bay to the
east (see below).
Hawaii Range Complex
Located in the central North Pacific
Ocean, surrounding the Hawaiian
Islands. Surface area is
approximately 235,000 nm2.
No continental shelf. Steeply sloping
gradients from land to the seafloor. Atolls,
seamounts, submarine plateaus are
features found throughout the OPAREA.
Ocean Operating Areas Outside the Bounds of Existing Range Complexes
Shortest route between Southern
California and Hawaii linking the
HRC and the SOCAL Range
Complex
Open ocean with a variety of bottom types,
characterized by both SOCAL Range
Complex and Hawaii Range Complex
features.
Naval Base Coronado
Located on the northern end of the
Silver Strand isthmus at the mouth of
San Diego Bay.
Naval Base San Diego
Located on the eastern shore of San
Diego Bay.
Adjacent to dredged channel leading to the
Bay (12 m) and shallow shoals (2-4 m) on
either side of the channel. See San Diego
Bay description below.
Naval Base Point Loma
Located on Point Loma, across the
mouth of San Diego Bay from Naval
Base Coronado.
Pearl Harbor Naval Complex
Located on the southern coast of
Oahu off of Mamala Bay.
Consists of a natural estuary with a mean
depth of 9.1 m. The deepest portion is
along the Waipio Peninsula in the main
channel with a depth of 28 m. Tidal flow is
weak and variable.
Naturally formed, crescent-shaped
embayment located along the
Southern California coast.
Approximately 25 km long and 1 to 4
km wide.
The mouth of the bay averages 12 m; the
southern end of the bay ranges from 1 to 4
m deep. Shoals at 2 to 4 m deep are
located immediately beyond the mouth of
the bay on either side of the dredged
approach channel.
Transit Corridor
Ports, Bays, and Shipyards
Bodies of Water
San Diego Bay
1
Navy Research Laboratory 2011
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2001a; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nautical Charts were
also reviewed to determine depth ranges at specific locations. Some “pierside activities” listed as taking place at these locations
actually take place away from the coastal areas and are located inside ranges.
Notes: SOCAL = Southern California, OPAREA = Operations Area, m = meters, HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, km = kilometers,
2
nm = square nautical miles
2
3‐37 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment The continental slope begins at the shelf break, which is defined by a dramatic increase in the seaward gradient of the seafloor to approximately 4 degrees (Pickard and Emery 1990). The continental slope extends to an average depth of approximately 9,800 ft. (2,987 m) and terminates at the continental rise, where the seafloor gradient decreases to approximately 0.3 degree. The continental rise extends from the base of the continental slope to a depth of approximately 13,000 ft. (3,962 m) and terminates at the abyssal zone or deep sea bottom. Just as on land, there are flat plains, valleys, and mountains in the abyssal zone. Depths are approximately 19,600 ft. (5,974 m) (Pickard and Emery 1990). Abyssal zones in the Pacific Ocean reach depths greater than 26,000 ft. (7,925 m). Bathymetric features associated with the continental margin and the deep seafloor of the Study Area include submarine canyons, volcanic islands, atolls, seamounts (underwater mountains), trenches, ridges, and plateaus. Bathymetry of the Study Area is shown in Figure 3‐11 and Figure 3‐12. Bathymetric features of the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem and the Southern California portion of the Study Area include a continental shelf, a continental slope, a rise, and a deep seafloor (Figure 3‐11). The continental shelf off of Southern California is associated with a borderland, a broad irregular region that extends seaward of the continental shelf (Gorsline 1992; Tomczak and Godfrey 2003b; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 2009a). The continental shelf extends from the shore to depths of approximately 655 ft. (200 m) (Tomczak and Godfrey 2003b; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 2009a). The continental slope, beginning at the shelf break, descends steeply to seafloor. The continental slope is divided into the upper slope (655 to 2,625 ft. [200 to 800 m]), which is adjacent to the shelf break, the mid‐slope (2,625 to 4,590 ft. [800 to 1,400 m]), and the lower slope (4,590 to 13,125 ft. [1,400 to 4,000 m]). Beyond the lower slope is a relatively flat or gently sloping abyssal plain, typically at depths between 11,480 ft. (3,500 m) and 21,325 ft. (6,500 m). Bathymetric features associated with the shelf and slope include elevated banks, seamounts, and steep ridges (Gorsline 1992). The shape of California’s coastline south of Point Conception creates a broad ocean embayment known as the SCB (National Research Council 1990). The SCB encompasses the area from Point Conception south into Mexico, including the Channel Islands. The Channel Islands archipelago is composed of eight volcanic islands that are located along the coastline of Southern California (Moody 2000). The southernmost islands that occur in the Study Area include San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente islands, which are located off of California between Ventura and Los Angeles County (Moody 2000). Bottom topography in the Southern California Bight varies from broad expanses of continental shelf to deep basins (National Research Council 1990). Southwest of the Channel Islands lies the Patton Escarpment, a steep ridge with contours bearing in a northwesterly direction (Uchupi and Emery 1963). This ridge drops approximately 4,900 ft. (1,500 m) to the deep ocean floor. Between the Patton Escarpment and the mainland lie the Santa Rosa Cortes Ridge, deep shelf basins (e.g., Catalina, San Clemente, East Cortes, West Cortes, San Nicolas, and Tanner); two important channels (Santa Barbara and San Pedro); and a series of escarpments, canyons, banks, and seamounts (e.g., Cortes Bank, Tanner Bank, 60 Mile Bank, Farnsworth Bank, and Lausen Sea Mount) (National Research Council 1990). Farther to the southwest, beyond Patton Escarpment, the only major bottom feature is the Westfall Seamount. To the south, along the coast of Baja California, lie several additional islands, banks, and basins. 3‐38 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐12: Bathymetry of the Southern California Range Complex 3‐39 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐13: Bathymetry of the Hawaiian Islands Submarine canyons dissect the continental shelf, slope, and rise off of Southern California and in the Study Area. These underwater canyons transport sediments from the continental shelf and slope to the deep seafloor, producing distinct sediment fans at their base (Covault et al. 2007). Major submarine canyons the Study Area include the Coronado, La Jolla, Scripps, and Catalina. In the open ocean areas of the Hawaii Range Complex, bathymetric features include the Hess Rise, a large plateau that occurs to the east of the Hawaii Emperor Seamount Chain, and the Shatsky Rise, a plateau that occurs to the west of the Hawaii Emperor Seamount Chain (Nemoto and Kroenke 1981). The Emperor Trough and numerous fracture zones, including the Mendocino Fracture Zone, are found within this region of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre (Nemoto and Kroenke 1981). Formed from volcanic eruptions, the Hawaiian Archipelago does not have a continental shelf. The Hawaiian Archipelago is composed of high islands, reefs, banks (continental shelf underwater elevation), atolls (coral reef islands surrounding a shallow lagoon), and seamounts (deep sea floor underwater mountains) (Polovina et al. 1995; Rooney et al. 2008). Other major bathymetric features in this region include submarine canyons, which reach depths greater than 6,560 ft. (2,000 m) have been identified off of Nihoa Island and Maro Reef, off of Oahu and Molokai islands (Vetter et al. 2010), and off of Hawaii and Kauai islands. 3‐40 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 3.3.1.4
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Water Column Essential Fish Habitat
The list of managed species and life‐stages for which water column areas are referenced in the EFH or HAPCs descriptions are compiled in Appendix B, and a summary of water column EFH and HAPCs for respective Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) is provided in Table 3‐7. Table 3‐7: Water Column EFH and HAPC references within Fishery Management Council areas of the HSTT Study Area Water
Column
Parameters
PFMC
Habitat Areas
EFH
Nearshore
EFH
SSTC, SOCAL
EFH
HRC
Estuarine
EFH
SSTC
EFH
HRC
All EEZ waters
All EEZ waters above the
thermocline
Less than or equal to 100 m
EFH
SSTC, SOCAL
EFH
SSTC, SOCAL
Offshore
Waters
Vertical
layers
WPRFMC
Range
Descriptor
Occurrence
EFH
HRC
Range
Occurrence
SOCAL
Descriptor
EFH
HRC
Less than or equal to 150 m
EFH
HRC
Less than or equal to 400 m
EFH
HRC
Between 550 and 700 m
EFH
HRC
Less than or equal to 600 m
EFH
HRC
EFH/HAPC
HRC
Less than or equal to1,000 m
Less than or equal to 3,500 m
EFH
SOCAL
Notes: (1) PFMC = Pacific Fishery Management Council, WPFRC – Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council; (2) The
habitats listed may or may not be represented in the available GIS data.
3.3.2
SUBSTRATES
The fundamental descriptor of soft or hard substrate is a key factor in structuring biogenic habitats (Nybakken 1993). The difference between substrates represents a viable target for the available mapping technology (e.g., multibeam sonar) and corresponds well to characterizations of Navy impacts (e.g., explosive charges, expended materials). The substrates also correspond to the EFH or HAPC descriptors for species/life stages and are compiled in Appendix B, with a summary of substrate EFH and HAPC for respective FMCs provided in Table 3‐8. Seafloor features (e.g., seamounts, banks, slopes, escarpments) are included among the types of substrate, and noted on the EFH habitat maps where spatial information is available. 3.3.2.1
Soft Shores
Soft shores include all wetland habitats having three characteristics: (1) unconsolidated substrates with less than 75 percent areal coverage of stones, boulders, or bedrock; (2) less than 30 percent areal coverage of vegetation other than pioneering plants; and (3) any of the following water regimes: irregularly exposed, regularly flooded, irregularly flooded, seasonally flooded, temporarily flooded, intermittently flooded, saturated, or artificially flooded (Cowardin et al. 1979). Soft shores include beaches, tidal flats and deltas, and stream beds of the tidal riverine and estuarine systems. 3‐41 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 3‐8: Substrate EFH and HAPC references within Fishery Management Council areas of the HSTT Study Area. PFMC
Habitats
Rocky Shelf
EFH
Range
Occurrence
SSTC, SOCAL
Non- Rocky Shelf
EFH
SSTC, SOCAL
Canyon
EFH
SOCAL
Continental Slope/Basin
EFH
SOCAL
Descriptor
WPRFMC
Range
Descriptor
Occurrence
HAPC
HRC
Soft Substrate
EFH
HRC
Coral Reef/Hard Substrate
EFH
HRC
Patch Reefs
EFH
HRC
Surge Zone
EFH
HRC
Deep-slope Terraces
EFH
HRC
HAPC
HRC
HAPC
HRC
Banks
Seamounts
HAPC
SOCAL
Notes: (1) PFMC = Pacific Fishery Management Council, WPFRC = Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council; (2) The
habitats listed may or may not be represented in the available GIS data.
Intermittent or intertidal channels of the Riverine System and intertidal channels of the Estuarine System are classified as Streambed. Intertidal flats, also known as tidal flats or mudflats, consist of loose mud, silt, and fine sand with organic‐mineral mixtures that are regularly exposed and flooded by the tides (Karleskint et al. 2006). Muddy fine sediment is deposited in sheltered inlets and estuaries where wave energy is low (Holland and Elmore 2008). Mudflats are typically unvegetated, but may be covered with mats of green algae and benthic diatoms (single‐celled algae), or sparsely vegetated with low‐growing aquatic species. The muddy intertidal habitat occurs most often as part of a patchwork of intertidal habitats that may include rocky shores, tidal creeks, sandy beaches, salt marshes, and mangroves. Beaches form through the interaction of waves and tides, as particles are sorted by size and deposited along the shoreline (Karleskint et al. 2006). Wide flat beaches with fine‐grained sands occur where wave energy is limited. Narrow steep beaches of coarser sand form where energy and tidal ranges are high (Speybroeck et al. 2008). Three zones characterize beach habitats: (1) dry areas above the mean high water, (2) wrack line (line of organic debris left on the beach by the action of tides) at the mean high water mark, and (3) a high‐energy intertidal zone. Tidal flats occur on a variety of scales in virtually all estuaries and bays in the California Current and Insular Pacific‐Hawaiian Large Marine Ecosystems. About 82 percent of Southern California’s coastline is sandy beach habitat (Figure 3‐13; Allen and Pondella 2006). The Southern California portion of the Study Area has extensive beaches, although few stretches are undisturbed by human activity (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2008). In the Hawaiian portion of the Study Area, beaches are common along the lagoon reaches of atoll islets and along the coasts of all of the main Hawaiian Islands. Significant sandy beach habitat occurs primarily on the western and southern sides of the islands (Maragos 2000). 3‐42 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐14: Bottom Substrate Composition of the Southern California Range Complex 3‐43 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 3.3.2.2
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Hard Shores
Rocky Shores include aquatic environments characterized by bedrock, stones, or boulders that, singly or in combination, cover 75 percent or more of the substrate and where vegetation covers less than 30 percent (Cowardin et al. 1979). Water regimes are restricted to irregularly exposed, regularly flooded, irregularly flooded, seasonally flooded, temporarily flooded, and intermittently flooded. Rocky intertidal shores are areas of bedrock that alternate between periods of submergence and exposure to air, depending on whether the tide is high or low. Extensive rocky shorelines can be interspersed with sandy areas, estuaries, or river mouths. Environmental gradients between hard shorelines and subtidal habitats are determined by wave action, depth and frequency of tidal inundation, and stability of substrate. Where wave energy is extreme, only rock outcrops may persist. In lower energy areas, a mixture of rock sizes will form the intertidal zone. Boulders scattered in the intertidal and subtidal areas provide substrate for attached macroalgae and sessile invertebrates. Within the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem, the most abundant and pristine hard intertidal habitat is within the Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary and the surrounding islands outside of the sanctuary (Figure 3‐13). The Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary contains approximately 95 mi. (152.9 km) of hard intertidal habitat (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2008). In the Insular Pacific‐Hawaiian Large Marine Ecosystem, hard intertidal habitat occurs throughout the Hawaiian Islands wherever physical conditions prevent sand from accumulating (Maragos 2000). 3.3.2.3
Soft Bottoms
Soft bottoms include all wetland and deepwater habitats with at least 25 percent cover of particles smaller than stones (10 to 24 in. [25 to 60 cm]), and a vegetative coverage less than 30 percent (Cowardin et al. 1979). Water regimes are restricted to subtidal, permanently flooded, intermittently exposed, and semi‐permanently flooded. Soft bottom forms the substrate of channels, shoals, subtidal flats, and other features of the bottom. Sandy channels emerge where strong currents connect estuarine and ocean water columns. Shoals form where sand is deposited along converging, sediment‐laden currents forming capes. Subtidal flats occur between the soft shores and the channels or shoals. The continental shelf extends seaward of the shoals and inlet channels, and includes an abundance of coarse‐grained, soft‐bottom habitats. Finer‐grained sediments collect off the shelf break, continental slope, and abyssal plain. These areas are inhabited by soft‐sediment communities of mobile invertebrates fueled by benthic algae production, chemosynthetic microorganisms, and detritus drifting through the water column. Soft‐bottom habitat is the dominant habitat in both the California and Hawaii portions of the Study Area. In the California portion, soft‐bottom habitat accounts for about 70 to 90 percent of bottom habitat (Figures 3‐14 and 3‐15; Allen et al. 2006). Sandy sediments are common in nearshore and shelf break portions of the Study Area while silt, clay, and mud sediments are common between the shelf break and nearshore sand sediments. Bays and harbors in the Insular Pacific‐Hawaiian Large Marine Ecosystem are dominated by fluvial sediment (sediments deposited by rivers and streams) and sediments composed of carbonate grains derived from organisms, such as corals and mollusks. The offshore habitats of the Hawaiian Islands have similar substrate compositions at depths of 984 to 5,249 ft. (300 to 1,600 m), and are dominated by silty 3‐44 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment sands and clay. At shallow depths, there is an increasing occurrence of rocky outcrops and coral rubble (Miller 1994). Over 50 percent of the nearshore areas of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are considered soft bottom (Friedlander et al. 2009). The abyssal regions, which cover approximately 80 percent of the Hawaii portion of the Study Area, consist of fine‐grained marine clays (Stephens et al. 1997). The HSTT Transit Corridor follows the most direct route from Hawaii to San Diego. The HSTT Transit Corridor occurs primarily over the abyssal plain, which is an underwater plain that consists of soft bottom habitat, primarily silts and clays. 3.3.2.4
Hard Bottoms
Hard, rocky bottom includes all subtidal habitats with substrates having an areal cover of stones, boulders, or bedrock 75 percent or greater and vegetative cover of less than 30 percent (Cowardin et al. 1979). Generic hard bottom could be any naturally occurring material on the bottom that is sufficiently solid and stationary (e.g., hard consolidated mud) to support sedentary, attached macroalgae or invertebrates (e.g., barnacles, anemones, hard corals). As such, hard bottom substrate forms the foundation of attached macroalgae beds, sedentary invertebrate beds, and reefs (refer to relevant sections for more information). Subtidal rocky bottom occurs as extensions of intertidal rocky shores and as isolated offshore outcrops. The shapes and textures of the larger rock assemblages and the fine details of cracks and crevices are determined by the type of rock, the wave energy, and other local variables (Davis 2009). Maintenance of rocky reefs requires wave energy sufficient to sweep sediment away (Lalli 1993) or offshore areas lacking a significant sediment supply; therefore, rocky reefs are rare on broad coastal plains near sediment‐laden rivers and are more common on high‐energy shores and beneath strong bottom currents, where sediments cannot accumulate. The shapes of the rocks determine, in part, the type of community that develops on a rocky bottom (Witman and Dayton 2001). Along coastal California below a depth of about 66 ft. (20 m) on rocky reefs, light is insufficient to support much plant life (Dawes 1998). Rocky reefs in this zone are encrusted with invertebrates, including sponges, sea cucumbers, soft corals, and sea whips, which provide food and shelter for many smaller invertebrates. Refer to biogenic habitat section for more information on species inhabiting rock bottoms. Less than two percent of the coastal seafloor in Southern California is composed of hard‐bottom habitat (California Department of Fish and Game 2009). Shallow hard‐bottom communities are relatively uncommon and patchy in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. The distribution of hard‐
bottom habitat in the Study Area has not been mapped extensively (Figure 3‐14; Whitmire and Clarke 2007). Hard bottoms are most common offshore of California near rocky headlands, along steep shelf areas, and near the shelf break and submarine canyons (Allen et al. 2006). The Navy used side‐scan sonar to identify the distribution of marine habitats in the offshore areas of SSTC which consisted of predominantly sandy substrate (91%) with patchy cobble areas (9%; Figure 3‐15). Volcanic rock and consolidated limestone hard bottom habitats are abundant in the Insular Pacific‐
Hawaiian Large Marine Ecosystem. Figures 3‐16 to 3‐19 show offshore hard‐bottom habitats in the main Hawaiian Islands. Hard‐bottom habitat at middle‐depths (100 to 330 ft. [30 to 101 m]) within the Insular Pacific‐Hawaiian Large Marine Ecosystem is extremely abundant but not colonized. The subtidal regions of Kaneohe Bay provide extensive solid rock formed from limestone and sand dunes, as well as dead coral, coral rubble, or live coral habitat. 3‐45 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐15: Bottom Substrate Composition of Silver Strand Training Complex 3‐46 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐16: Offshore Habitats of Island of Oahu 3‐47 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐17: Offshore Habitats of Island of Kauai and Niihau 3‐48 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐18: Offshore Habitats of Island of Maui, Molokai, and Lanai 3‐49 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐19: Offshore Habitats of Island of Hawaii 3‐50 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Although the primary habitat of the HSTT Transit Corridor is soft‐bottom, small portions of hard‐bottom habitat may lie within that portion of the Study Area. Hard‐bottom habitat includes ridges, submarine canyons, seamounts, and other areas of seafloor that area exposed because of ocean currents. 3.3.2.5
Artificial Structures
Artificial habitats are manmade structures that provide habitat for marine organisms. Artificial habitats occur in the marine environment either by design and intended as habitat (e.g., artificial reefs), by design and intended for a function other than habitat (e.g., oil and gas platforms, fish‐aggregating devices, floating objects moored at specific locations in the ocean to attract fishes that live in the open ocean), or unintentionally (e.g., shipwrecks). Artificial structures function as hard bottom by providing structural attachment points for algae and sessile invertebrates, which in turn support a community of animals that feed, seek shelter, and reproduce there (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2007). Artificial habitats in the Study Area include artificial reefs (Figure 3‐20), shipwrecks (Figures 3‐21 and 3‐22), oil and gas platforms, man‐made shoreline structures (i.e., piers, wharfs, docks, pilings), and fish‐aggregating devices (Macfadyen et al. 2009; Seaman 2007). Artificial reefs are designed and deployed to supplement the ecological services provided by coral or rocky reefs. Artificial reefs range from simple concrete blocks to highly engineered structures. Vessels that sink to the seafloor, including Navy shipwrecks within the Study Area, are colonized by the common encrusting marine organisms that attach to hard bases. Over time, the wrecks can become functioning reefs. As part of a Minerals Management Service study, a database was compiled that documents 4,676 shipwrecks off the coast of California, with 876 wrecks in Southern California (Minerals Management Service 1990a). The Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System database (Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System Database 2010) lists 292 wrecks just in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura Counties (see Figure 3‐20). Shipwrecks located near the Island of Hawaii are concentrated along its northwestern coast and within Hilo Bay. The numerous known wrecks in the waters surrounding Oahu include the largely intact USS Sea Tiger, a World War II‐era Japanese midget submarine; Mahi, a Navy minesweeper/cable layer scuttled off the Waianae Coast; and the YO‐257, a Navy yard oiler built in the 1940s that was intentionally sunk off Waikiki in 1989 to create an artificial reef. Major shipwrecks in Pearl Harbor include the USS Arizona, the USS Utah, and the USS Bowfin, which are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. A cultural resources survey reported 127 known wrecks in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, including ships and aircraft (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 2009). At least 14 ships have run aground in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands since 1957 (Friedlander et al. 2009) (see Figure 3‐21). Most artificial reefs in marine waters have been placed and monitored by individual state programs; national and state databases of artificial reefs are not available (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2007). A 2001 report identified more than 100 artificial reefs in Southern California (California Department of Fish and Game 2001b), including some at Pendleton, Carlsbad, Bolsa Chica, and Mission Bay (California Department of Fish and Game 2001a, b). In addition to deploying reefs to enhance fish habitat, California has constructed some artificial reefs specifically to replace or enhance degraded rocky reef and kelp habitat. Artificial reefs installed at Mission Beach, Topanga, and San Mateo Point successfully support mature kelp forests (California Department of Fish and Game 2009). 3‐51 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐20: Southern California Artificial Reefs
3‐52 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐21: Southern California Shipwrecks 3‐53 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 3‐22: Hawaii Shipwrecks 3‐54 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Off Southern California, 23 oil and gas platforms are operating in federal waters of the outer continental shelf at depths from 130 ft (39.6 m) to more than 655 ft. (199.6 m). Operations are expected to continue through 2025 (Love et al. 2006; Minerals Management Service 2007). Four platforms offshore of Orange County are located within the Study Area. In the Insular Pacific‐Hawaiian Large Marine Ecosystem, the State of Hawaii manages five artificial reefs, four around Oahu and one on the southern side of Maui (Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources 2006). In addition, the State monitors and maintains 55 surface fish aggregating devices (University of Hawaii 2010). No record of fish aggregating devices in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem was located using standard search techniques. 3.3.3
BIOGENIC HABITATS
Living structures on the substrate are termed biogenic habitats, and include wetland shores, attached macroalgae beds, submerged rooted vegetation beds, and coral reefs (refer to relevant sections for detailed description). The differences between biogenic habitat reflect a basic continuum of resilience and recovery from disturbance; attached macroalgae recover quickly from the least disturbance (Mach et al. 2007), whereas reef structures take a very long time to recover from a relatively high level of disturbance (Fox and Caldwell 2006). The biogenic habitats also correspond to the EFH or HAPC descriptors for species/life stages (Tables 3‐7 and 3‐8). The biogenic habitats are classified by water (e.g., open ocean, continental shelf, nearshore) to refine their location within a fishery management council region (Table 3‐8). 3.3.3.1
Vegetated Shores
Vegetated shorelines are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens that grow above the water line (Cowardin et al. 1979). This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years. These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants. All water regimes are included except subtidal and irregularly exposed. Vegetated shorelines in the Study Area are formed by salt marsh or mangrove plant species. 3.3.3.1.1
Cordgrasses
Cordgrasses are temperate salt‐tolerant land plants that inhabit salt marshes, mudflats, and other soft‐bottom coastal habitats (Castro and Huber 2000). Salt marshes develop in intertidal, protected low energy environments, usually in coastal lagoons, tidal creeks, rivers, or estuaries (Mitsch et al. 2009). The structure and composition of salt marshes provide important ecosystem services. Salt marshes support commercial fisheries by providing habitat for wildlife, protecting the coastline from erosion, filtering fresh water discharges into the open ocean, taking up nutrients, and breaking down or binding pollutants before they reach the ocean (Dreyer and Niering 1995; Mitsch et al. 2009). Salt marshes also are carbon sinks (carbon reservoirs) and facilitate nutrient cycling (Bouillon 2009; Chmura 2009). Carbon sinks are important in reducing the impact of climate change (Laffoley and Grimsditch 2009), and nutrient cycling facilitates the transformation of important nutrients through the environment. In salt marshes and mudflats along the California coast, native cordgrass species include California cordgrass (Spartina foliosa). Atlantic cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) is a native cordgrass species from the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and is considered an invasive species in California because it produces seeds at higher rates than the native cordgrass, and can quickly colonize mudflats (Howard 2008). 3‐55 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 3.3.3.1.2
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Mangroves
Mangroves are a group of woody plants that have adapted to saline water environments in the tropics and subtropics (Ruwa 1996). The red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle, and several other species of mangroves were introduced to Hawaii (Allen 1998). Since the introduction of this species, mangroves have invaded intertidal areas formerly devoid of trees. The red mangrove is now well‐established in the main Hawaiian Islands. The red mangrove is considered to be an invasive species in the main Hawaiian Islands, and various resource agencies have eradication programs targeting the red mangrove and other mangrove infestations. No mangroves are found within California coastal environments. 3.3.3.2
Submerged Rooted Vegetation Beds
Submerged rooted vegetation form “meadows” or “beds” where they dominate the intertidal or shallow subtidal zone of estuarine or nearshore waters (Fonseca et al. 1998). The plants grow in soft bottom substrate receiving 15 to 22 percent or more of surface light intensity (Fonseca et al. 1998; Kemp et al. 2004) depending on “bio‐optical” properties of the water (Biber et al. 2008). Seagrasses are unique among flowering plants because they grow submerged in shallow marine environments. Except for some species that inhabit the rocky intertidal zone, seagrasses grow in shallow, subtidal, or intertidal sediments, and can extend over a large area to form seagrass beds (Garrison 2004; Phillips and Meñez 1988). Seagrass beds provide important ecosystem services as a structure‐forming keystone species (Harborne et al. 2006). They provide suitable nursery habitat for commercially important organisms (e.g., crustaceans, fish, and shellfish) and also are a food source for numerous species (e.g., sea turtles) (Heck et al. 2003; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2001b). Seagrass beds combat coastal erosion, promote nutrient cycling through the breakdown of detritus (Dawes 1998), and improve water quality. Seagrasses also contribute a high level of primary production to the marine environment, which supports high species diversity and biomass (Spalding et al. 2003). Seagrasses that occur in the coastal areas of the Southern California portion of the Study Area include eelgrass (Zostera marina and Zostera asiatica), surfgrass (Phyllospadix scouleri and Phyllospadix torreyi), and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) (Figures 3‐13 and 3‐14; Spalding et al. 2003). The distribution of underwater vegetation is patchy along the California coast. In the Southern California portion of the Study Area, eelgrass and surfgrass are the dominant native seagrasses (Wyllie‐Echeverria and Ackerman 2003). In Hawaii, the most common seagrasses are Hawaiian seagrass (Halophila hawaiiana) and paddle grass (Halophila decipiens). Hawaiian seagrasses are native species found at 1.6 to 3.1 ft. (0.5 to 0.9 m) in subtidal, sandy areas surrounding reefs, in bays, or in fishponds. It occurs in coastal waters of Oahu near Mamala Bay (southern coast), in Maunalua Bay (southeastern coast), in Kaneohe Bay (northeast coast), in coastal waters of Maui, in the inner reef flats of southern Molokai, at Anini Beach on the northern shore of Kauai, and at Midway Atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Phillips and Meñez 1988). Paddle grass is possibly a nonnative species that occurs only on Oahu in waters to 115 ft. (35 m) deep; it is apparently restricted to the southern shore of Oahu (Maragos 2000; Preskitt 2001, 2002b). 3.3.3.3
Attached Macroalgae Beds
Attached, non‐vascular plants (i.e., macroalgae) form “meadows” or “beds” where they dominate intertidal shores or subtidal bottoms. Green, red, and brown algae represent basic taxonomic groups of macroalgae species, with some species (e.g., kelp, seaweed) growing attached to substrate. As a general 3‐56 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment rule, algae can grow down to bottom areas receiving one percent or more of surface light intensity (Wetzel 2001). Kelp is the most conspicuous brown algae occurring extensively along the coast in the Southern California portion of the Study Area (Figures 3‐13 and 3‐14). The giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) can live up to eight years, and can reach lengths of 197 ft. (60 m). The leaf‐like fronds can grow up to 24 in. (61 cm) per day (Leet et al. 2001). Bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) can grow up to 5 in. (13 cm) per day. Bull kelp attaches to rocky substrate, and can grow up to 164 ft. (50 m) in length in nearshore areas. In turbid waters, the offshore edge of kelp beds occurs at depths of 50 to 60 ft. (15 to 18 m), which can extend to a depth of 100 ft. (30 m) in the clear waters around the Channel Islands off the coast of Southern California (Wilson 2002). The kelp beds along the California coast and in waters off the Channel Islands are the most extensive and elaborate submarine forests in the world (Rodriguez et al. 2001). Six species of canopy‐forming kelp occur in the coastal waters of the California coast: the giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera), bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana), elk horn kelp (Pelagophycus porra), feather boa kelp (Egregia menziesii), chain bladder kelp (Stephanocystis osmundacea), and winged kelp (Alaria marginata) (Dayton 1985). The dominant kelp in the Southern California portion of the Study Area is giant kelp. Since the first statewide survey in 1967, the total area of kelp canopies has generally declined; the greatest decline occurred along the mainland coast of Southern California (Wilson 2002). Kelp is managed by the California Department of Fish and Game, which issues exclusive leases to harvest designated beds for up to 20 years. Although they are not limited in the amount, harvesters cannot take kelp from deeper than 4 ft. (1.2 m) below the water’s surface to protect the reproductive structures at the kelp’s base (Wilson 2002). Edible brown seaweeds that are collected in Hawaii’s coastal waters include Sargassum echinocarpum and Dictyopteris plagiograma (Preskitt 2002a). Collection is regulated by the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. Invasive marine brown algal species are found in coastal waters of the Southern California portion of the Study Area. Undaria pinnatifida, native to Japan, is found along the California coast (Global Invasive Species Database 2005). Two introduced species of Sargassum inhabit the Study Area. The brown alga Sargassum muticum, was introduced from the Sea of Japan, and now occupies portions of the California coast (Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute 2009). Sargassum horneri, which is native to western Japan and Korea, occurs in Long Beach Harbor and in Southern California waters off San Diego, Orange County, San Clemente Island, and Santa Catalina Island (Miller et al. 2007). 3.3.3.4
Coral Reefs and Communities
There are 59 known species of stony corals occupying the reefs of the Hawaiian archipelago (Maragos et al. 2004). Compared to the coral reefs of the Indo‐Pacific, which can contain up to 500 species of stony corals, the reefs of Hawaii have a low diversity (Grigg 1997a). Over 25% of the animals found on the reefs of Hawaii are endemic (Clark and Gulko 1999); in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands (defined as the small islands and atolls in the Hawaiian island chain located northwest of the islands of Kauai and Niihau), at least 30% of the stony corals are endemic (Maragos et al. 2004). Overall, 29% of coral species found on Hawaiian reefs are endemic to the main Hawaiian Islands and the northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Maragos et al. 2004). The paucity of reef corals is due in part to the geographic isolation of Hawaii from larval sources (Grigg 1988). Prevailing surface water transport is from east to west, driven by the northeast trade winds. 3‐57 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment There are no coral reef ecosystems to the east of the Hawaiian archipelago capable of acting as a source of coral larvae. The non‐endemic coral species originated in the western Pacific and were transported to the Hawaiian Islands as larvae by the Kuroshio Current and Subtropical Counter‐Current (Grigg 1988, 1997b). The distant source of coral larvae has created a region of low species diversity and relatively high endemism (Maragos et al. 2004). Coral reefs of Hawaii are also populated by 700 species of fish, 400 species of algae, 1,000 mollusk species, and 1,326 species of invertebrates (excluding stony corals) (Grigg 1997a). Coral reefs of the Hawaiian archipelago are found on the main Hawaiian Islands (Figures 3‐16 to 3‐19), northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and islets that fringe the main Hawaiian Islands (Maragos 2000). Depicted reef habitats based on NCCOS/NOAA (2003) data are linear reefs, aggregated coral, spur and groove reefs, patch reefs, coral heads, scattered coral/rock in unconsolidated sediments, colonized pavement, and colonized volcanic rocks and boulders. Linear reefs are defined as “coral formations that are oriented parallel to shore or the shelf edge” (NOAA 2003). As a category of reefs, linear reefs include fore reefs, fringing reefs, and shelf edge reefs. Aggregated corals are reef habitats that are primarily composed of reef‐building corals and have high topographic complexity. Spur and groove reefs typically occur in the fore reef environment and have alternating coral ridges (spurs) and sand channels (grooves) oriented perpendicular to the shore. Patch reefs are coral formations that are isolated by sand or seagrass from other reef habitats and that do not have a structural organization related to the shoreline or insular shelf edge. Scattered coral/rock in unconsolidated sediments (sand or seagrass) are smaller than individual patch reefs. Colonized pavement is low relief carbonate rock colonized by plentiful macroalgae, hard corals, zoanthids, and other sessile invertebrates. These organisms also constitute the live substrate of colonized volcanic rocks and boulders (NOAA 2003). The geographic extremities of coral occurrence in the Hawaiian archipelago are the island of Hawaii on the southeastern end of the archipelago and Kure Atoll at the northwestern end of the archipelago (Maragos 2000). While coral reefs occur throughout the Hawaiian archipelago, the rate of coral accretion (calcium carbonate production) gradually decreases from 15 kilograms per square meters per year (kg/m2/yr) at Hawaii to 0.3 kg/m2/yr at Kure Atoll. Reef accretion decreases with increasing latitude due to changes in incident light and sea surface temperature; there is a 10° latitude difference between the island of Hawaii and Kure Atoll (Grigg 1981). The Hawaiian Islands have 5,100 nm2 (17,520 km2) of coral reef area, representing 84% of the coral reef area in the U.S. (1,021 nm2 [3,504 km2] in the MHI and 14,016 km2 in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands) (Maragos 2000). The northwestern Hawaiian Islands contain approximately 80% of the coral reef habitat in the Hawaiian archipelago (Maragos et al. 2004). The main Hawaiian Islands are for the most part high volcanic islands that include “non‐structural reef communities,” fringing reefs, and two barrier reefs (Kaneohe Bay and Moanalua Bay, Oahu) (Grigg 1997a, 1997b; Friedlander et al. 2004). Reefs of the northwestern Hawaiian Islands consist of atolls, islands, and banks (Grigg 1997a). Kure Atoll is known as the Darwin Point, a threshold of atoll formation or extinction. The accretion of calcium carbonate at Kure Atoll due to coral growth is in balance with the loss of calcium carbonate due to bioerosion and subsidence (Grigg 1981). Drowned guyots (isolated underwater volcanic mountain) and seamounts are found northwest of Kure Atoll. Due to the motion of the Pacific Plate, the Hawaiian Islands have been transported in a north to northwest direction away from their original location of formation over the hot spot at a rate of about 10 centimeters per year (cm/yr) (Grigg 1988, 1997b). The youngest island in the archipelago is Hawaii, where the youngest fringing reefs are found; which are on the western coast of Hawaii and are from 100 to 1,000 years old. The barrier reefs in the Hawaiian 3‐58 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment archipelago take approximately 2.5 million years to form while atolls take 10 million years to form (Grigg 1988, 1997b). Wave action is the main natural control on coral reef structure along the coastline of the Hawaiian Islands (Grigg 1997a; Jokiel et al. 2001, 2004). The breaking, scouring, and abrading action caused by waves on corals yields high mortality. Other natural factors that influence the formation of coral reefs along the Hawaiian Islands include sedimentation, turbidity, incident light, and dissolved nutrients (Grigg 1997a). The greatest reef accretion occurs in areas sheltered from wave action such as embayments and on the leeward side of islands (Grigg 1997a; Jokiel et al. 2001, 2004). Coral reefs are particularly well developed on the western coast (Kona coast) of Hawaii and on the south coast of Molokai (Maragos 2000; Jokiel et al. 2001, 2004). Despite the fact that wave action limits the accretion of reef building corals, reefs are also found along the south and northeast coastlines of Oahu, the north coastline of Kauai, and the northeast coastline of Lanai (Maragos 2000). Stony corals, or reef‐building corals, are primarily located on the seaward edge of fringing reefs and the fore reef slope (Maragos 2000); in the absence of stony corals crustose coralline algae colonize coastlines that are exposed to wave action (Maragos 2000). Table 3‐9: Biogenic habitats in Fishery Management Council areas and their EFH synonyms PFMC
Habitats
Vegetated Shores
Submerged Rooted
Vegetation Beds
Attached Macroalgae Beds
Descriptor
Eelgrass beds,
Seagrass beds
Canopy kelp
WPRFMC
Range
Occurrence
SSTC, SOCAL
Mangrove
Range
Occurrence
HRC
Seagrass beds
HRC
Coral reefs
HRC
Descriptor
SSTC, SOCAL
Reefs
Notes: (1) PFMC = Pacific Fishery Management Council, WPFRC – Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council; (2) The
habitats listed may or may not be represented in the available GIS data.
.
3‐59 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank
3‐60 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
The overall approach to analysis in this EFH Assessment included the following general steps: •
•
•
•
Identification of habitats designated as EFH and HAPCs for analysis Habitat‐specific impacts analysis for individual stressors Habitat‐specific impacts analysis for combined stressors Consideration of mitigations to reduce identified potential impacts Navy training and testing activities in the Proposed Action may produce one or more stimuli that cause stress on a habitat designated as EFH. Each proposed Navy activity was examined to determine its potential stressors (Table 4‐1). Not all stressors affect every habitat, nor do all proposed Navy activities produce stressors (Table 4‐2). The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action were analyzed based on the presence of these potential stressors within the designated habitat. First, a preliminary analysis was conducted to determine the environmental resources potentially impacted and associated stressors. The term stressor is broadly used in this document to refer to an agent, condition, or other stimulus that causes stress to an organism or alters physical, socioeconomic, or cultural resources. Secondly, each resource was analyzed for potential impacts from individual stressors, followed by an analysis of the combined impacts of all stressors related to the Proposed Action. Mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Section 5.0. In this phased approach, the initial analyses were used to develop each subsequent step so the analysis focused on relevant issues that warranted the most attention. The systematic nature of this approach allowed the Proposed Action with the associated stressors and potential impacts to be effectively tracked throughout the process. This approach provides a comprehensive analysis of applicable stressors and potential impacts. Each step is described in more detail below. 4.1
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Section 2.0 (Proposed Action) could impact EFH and HAPC in the Fishery Management Council regions of the Study Area. A stressor is analyzed for a designated habitat if it has the potential to alter the quality or quantity of that habitat (e.g., seagrass beds, shallow coral reefs). The stressors applicable to one or more EFH and HAPCs in the Study Area include the following: •
•
•
•
Acoustic (non‐impulsive and impulsive sources) – as an impact on the quality of water column habitat for managed species Energy (electromagnetic devices) Physical disturbance and strikes (vessels and in‐water devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices) Contaminants (explosive byproducts, heavy metals, chemicals, and marine debris) 4‐1 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 4‐1: List of Stressors Analyzed Components and Stressor Categories for Physical Resources
Acoustic Stressors Sonar and other active acoustic sources
Vessel noise
Explosives
Pile driving
Swimmer defense airguns
Weapons firing, launch, and impact noise
Energy Stressors Electromagnetic devices
Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors
Vessels
In-water devices
Military expended materials
Seafloor devices
Pile driving
Contaminant Stressors
Explosives, explosive byproducts, unexploded ordnance
Metals
Chemicals other than explosives
Other materials
The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and location within the Study Area. The data available for these parameters are limited to what is presented in Section 2.5 (Proposed Action). The specific analysis of the training and testing activities considers the stressor “footprints” and their coincidence with designated EFH and HAPCs within Fishery Management Council boundaries. The duration of impacts is based on either the duration of stressor or recovery of the habitat: •
•
•
•
•
Temporary – stressor duration or recovery in hours, days, or weeks Short Term – stressor duration or recovery in less than 3 years Long Term – stressor duration or recovery in more than 3 years but less than 20 years Permanent – stressor duration or recovery in more than 20 years Minimal effects could be those that are limited in duration and that allow the affected area to recover before measurable long‐term impacts to EFH occur, or those that may result in relatively small and insignificant changes to EFH and its ecological functions. The conclusions for spatial and temporal impacts on EFH are encapsulated in text boxes at the end of the training and testing activities sections under each substressor. The managed species life stages that could be impacted are listed by habitat descriptors in Appendix B. The analysis will be separated by: (1) potential impacts on water column; (2) potential impacts on benthic substrate; (3) potential impacts on biogenic habitats; and (4) potential impacts on HAPCs. 4‐2 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 4‐2: Stressors by Warfare and Testing Area Warfare Area/Testing Area
Acoustic
Stressors
Energy
Stressors
Physical
Disturbance and
Strike Stressors
Contaminant
Stressors
Training Activities
Anti-Air Warfare
9 9 9 Amphibious Warfare
9 9 9 Strike Warfare
9 9 9 Anti-Surface Warfare
9 9 9 9 Anti-Submarine Warfare
9 9 9 Electronic Warfare
9 9 9 Mine Warfare
9 9 9 9 Naval Special Warfare
9 9 9 9 Major Exercises
9 9 9 9 Other Training Activities
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Testing Activities
Anti-Air Warfare
9 Anti-Surface Warfare
9 Electronic Warfare
9 9 9 Anti-Submarine Warfare
9 9 9 Mine Warfare
9 9 9 9 New Ship Construction
9 9
9
9
Life cycle Activities
9 Unmanned Vehicle Testing
9 SPAWAR Testing
9 9 9 Office of Naval Research Testing
9 9 9 Other Testing Activities
9 9 9 9 SPAWAR = Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command
4.1.1
ACOUSTIC STRESSORS
This section analyzes the potential impacts of acoustic stressors on EFH and HAPCs resulting from training and testing activities within the Study Area. For both non‐impulsive and impulsive stressors, water column EFH and HAPC within the Study Area may be temporarily impacted through an increase in the ambient sound levels. Acoustic stressors should have no effect on other habitat types designated as either EFH or HAPCs. While the level of ambient sound in the water column will return to normal immediately following the completion of the training or testing exercise, thus resulting in only a temporary impact to water column EFH, federally managed fish and invertebrate species may be affected during this period within the vicinity of the stressor as a result of this brief alteration of the ambient noise level. The analysis of the potential indirect effects to fish and invertebrates as a result of impacts to the water column habitats designated as EFH is limited to physical injury or mortality within the immediate vicinity of where the stressor may occur. Hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, and behavioral reactions to impulsive stressors beyond the range of physical impacts are assumed but not quantified, and included with the physical impacts. If there is no physical injury or mortality anticipated, the impact on water column EFH is assessed qualitatively. The qualitative assessment of hearing loss, auditory 4‐3 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment masking, physiological stress and behavioral reactions is based on the hearing and vocalization capacities of fish and invertebrates. Acoustic sources were divided into two categories, impulsive and non‐impulsive. Impulsive sounds feature a very rapid increase to high pressures, followed by a rapid return to static pressure. Impulsive sounds are often produced by processes involving a rapid release of energy or mechanical impacts (Hamernik and Hsueh 1991). Explosions, airgun impulses, and impact pile driving are examples of impulsive sound sources. Non‐impulsive sounds lack the rapid rise time and can have durations longer than those of impulsive sounds. Sonar pings and underwater transponders are examples of non‐
impulsive sound sources. The terms “impulsive” and “non‐impulsive” were selected for use because they were deemed more technically accurate and less confusing than the terms “explosive” and “acoustic” used in previous documentation. Fish Hearing and Vocalization
All fish have two sensory systems to detect sound in the water: the inner ear, which functions very much like the inner ear in other vertebrates, and the lateral line, which consists of a series of receptors along the fish’s body (Popper and Schilt 2008). The inner ear generally detects relatively higher‐frequency sounds, while the lateral line detects water motion at low frequencies (below a few hundred Hertz [Hz]) (Hastings and Popper 2005). Although hearing capability data only exist for fewer than 100 of the 32,000 fish species, current data suggest that most species of fish detect sounds from 50 to 1,000 Hz, with few fish hearing sounds above 4 kHz (Popper 2008). It is believed that most fish have their best hearing sensitivity from 100 to 400 Hz (Popper 2003). Additionally, some clupeids (shad in the subfamily Alosinae) possess ultrasonic hearing (i.e., able to detect sounds above 100,000 Hz) (Astrup 1999). The inner ears of fish are directly sensitive to acoustic particle motion rather than acoustic pressure. Although a propagating sound wave contains both pressure and particle motion components, particle motion is most significant at low frequencies (less than a few hundred Hertz) and closer to the sound source. However, a fish’s gas‐filled swim bladder can enhance sound detection by converting acoustic pressure into localized particle motion, which may then be detected by the inner ear. Fish with swim bladders generally have more sensitive and higher‐frequency hearing than fish without swim bladders (Popper and Fay 2010). Some fish also have specialized structures such as small gas bubbles or gas‐filled projections that terminate near the inner ear. These fish have been called “hearing specialists,” while fish that do not possess specialized structures have been referred to as “generalists” (Popper et al. 2003). In reality many fish species possess a continuum of anatomical specializations that may enhance their sensitivity to pressure (versus particle motion), and thus higher frequencies and lower intensities (Popper and Fay 2010). Past studies indicated that hearing specializations in marine fish were quite rare (Amoser and Ladich 2005). However, more recent studies show there are more fish species than originally investigated by researchers, such as deep sea fish, that may have evolved structural adaptations to enhance hearing capabilities (Buran et al. 2005; Deng et al. 2011). Marine fish families Holocentridae (squirrelfish and soldierfish), Pomacentridae (damselfish), Gadidae (cod, hakes, and grenadiers), and Sciaenidae (drums, weakfish, and croakers) have some members that can potentially hear sound up to a few kHz. There is also evidence, based on the structure of the ear and the relationship between the ear and the swim bladder, that at least some deep‐sea species, including myctophids, may have hearing specializations and thus be able to hear higher frequencies (Deng et al. 2011; Popper 1977; Popper 1980), although it has not been possible to do actual measures of hearing on these fish from great depths. 4‐4 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Several species of reef fish tested show sensitivity to higher frequencies (i.e., over 1000 Hz). The hearing of the shoulderbar soldierfish (Myripristis kuntee) has an auditory range extending toward 3 kHz (Coombs and Popper 1979), while other species tested in this family have been demonstrated to lack this higher frequency hearing ability (e.g., Hawaiian squirrelfish [Adioryx xantherythrus] and saber squirrelfish [Sargocentron spiniferum]). Some damselfish can hear frequencies of up to 2 kHz, but with best sensitivity well below 1 kHz (Egner and Mann 2005; Kenyon 1996; Wright et al. 2005, 2007). Sciaenid research by Ramcharitar et al. (2006) investigated the hearing sensitivity of weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Weakfish were found to detect frequencies up to 2 kHz. The sciaenid with the greatest hearing sensitivity discovered thus far is the silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura), which has responded to sounds up to 4 kHz (Ramcharitar et al. 2004). Other species tested in the family Sciaenidae have been demonstrated to lack this higher frequency sensitivity. It is possible that the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua, Family: Gadidae) is also able to detect high‐frequency sounds (Astrup and Mohl 1993). However, in Astrup and Mohl’s (1993) study it is feasible that the cod was detecting the stimulus using touch receptors that were over driven by very intense fish‐finding sonar emissions (Astrup 1999; Ladich and Popper 2004). Nevertheless, Astrup and Mohl (1993) indicated that cod have high frequency thresholds of up to 38 kHz at 185 to 200 dB relative to (re) 1 µPa, which likely only allows for detection of odontocete’s clicks at distances no greater than 33 to 98 ft. (10 to 30 m) (Astrup 1999). Experiments on several species of the Clupeidae (e.g., herrings, shads, and menhadens) have obtained responses to frequencies between 40 kHz and 180 kHz (Astrup 1999); however, not all clupeid species tested have demonstrated this very high‐frequency hearing. Mann et al. (1998) reported that the American shad can detect sounds from 0.1 to 180 kHz with two regions of best sensitivity: one from 0.2 to 0.8 kHz, and the other from 25 kHz to 150 kHz. This shad species has relatively high thresholds (about 145 dB re 1µPa), which should enable the fish to detect odontocete clicks at distances up to about 656 ft. (200 m) (Mann et al. 1997). Likewise, other members of the subfamily Alosinae, including alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), and Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus), have upper hearing thresholds exceeding 100 to 120 kHz. In contrast, the Clupeidae bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), scaled sardine (Harengula jaguana), and Spanish sardine (Sardinella aurita) did not respond to frequencies over 4 kHz (Gregory and Clabburn 2003; Mann et al. 2001). Mann et al. (2005) found hearing thresholds of 0.1 kHz to 5 kHz for Pacific herring (Clupyea pallasii). Two other groups to consider are the jawless fish (Superclass: Agnatha – lamprey) and the cartilaginous fish (Class: Chondrichthyes – the sharks, rays, and chimeras). While there are some lampreys in the marine environment, virtually nothing is known about their hearing capability. They do have ears, but these are relatively primitive compared to the ears of other vertebrates, and it is unknown whether they can detect sound (Popper and Hoxter 1987). While there have been some studies on the hearing of cartilaginous fish, these have not been extensive. However, available data suggest detection of sounds from 20 to 1,000 Hz, with best sensitivity at lower ranges (Casper et al. 2003; Casper and Mann 2006; Casper and Mann 2009; Myrberg 2001). It is likely that elasmobranchs only detect low‐frequency sounds because they lack a swim bladder or other pressure detector. Most other marine species investigated to date lack higher‐frequency hearing (i.e., greater than 1,000 Hz). This notably includes sturgeon species tested to date that could detect sound up to 400 or 500 Hz (Lovell et al. 2005) and Atlantic salmon that could detect sound up to about 500 Hz (Hawkins and Johnstone 1978; Kane et al. 2010). 4‐5 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Bony fish can produce sounds in a number of ways and use them for a number of behavioral functions (Ladich 2008). Over 30 families of fish are known to use vocalizations in aggressive interactions, whereas over 20 families known to use vocalizations in mating (Ladich 2008). Sound generated by fish as a means of communication is generally below 500 Hz (Slabbekoorn et al. 2010). The air in the swim bladder is vibrated by the sound producing structures (often muscles that are integral to the swim bladder wall) and radiates sound into the water (Zelick et al. 1999). Sprague and Luczkovich (2004) calculated that silver perch can produce drumming sounds ranging from 128 to 135 dB re 1µPa. Female midshipman fish apparently use the auditory sense to detect and locate vocalizing males during the breeding season (Sisneros and Bass 2003). Invertebrate Hearing and Vocalization
Very little is known about sound detection and use of sound by aquatic invertebrates (Budelmann 1992a, b; Montgomery et al. 2006; Popper et al. 2001). Organisms may detect sound by sensing either the particle motion or pressure component of sound, or both. Aquatic invertebrates probably do not detect pressure since many are generally the same density as water and few, if any, have air cavities that would function like the fish swim bladder in responding to pressure (Budelmann 1992b; Popper et al. 2001). Many aquatic invertebrates, however, have ciliated "hair" cells that may be sensitive to water movements, such as those caused by currents or water particle motion very close to a sound source (Budelmann 1992a, b; Mackie and Singla 2003). This may allow sensing of nearby prey or predators or help with local navigation. Aquatic invertebrates that can sense local water movements with ciliated cells include cnidarians, flatworms, segmented worms, urochordates (tunicates), mollusks, and arthropods (Budelmann 1992a, b; Popper et al. 2001).The sensory capabilities of corals are largely limited to detecting water movement using receptors on their tentacles (Gochfeld 2004), and the exterior cilia of coral larvae likely help them detect nearby water movements (Vermeij et al. 2010). Some aquatic invertebrates have specialized organs called statocysts for determination of equilibrium and, in some cases, linear or angular acceleration. Statocysts allow an animal to sense movement and may enable some species, such as cephalopods and crustaceans, to be sensitive to water particle movements associated with sound (Hu et al. 2009; Kaifu et al. 2008; Montgomery et al. 2006; Popper et al. 2001). Because any acoustic sensory capabilities, if present at all, are limited to detecting water motion, and water particle motion near a sound source falls off rapidly with distance, aquatic invertebrates are probably limited to detecting nearby sound sources rather than sound caused by pressure waves from distant sources. Both behavioral and auditory brainstem response studies suggest that crustaceans may sense sounds up to 3 kHz, but best sensitivity is likely below 200 Hz (Goodall et al. 1990; Lovell et al. 2005; Lovell et al. 2006). Most cephalopods (e.g., octopus and squid) likely sense low‐frequency sound below 1,000 Hz, with best sensitivities at lower frequencies (Budelmann 1992b; Mooney et al. 2010; Packard et al. 1990). A few may sense higher frequencies up to 1,500 Hz (Hu et al. 2009). Squid did not respond to toothed whale ultrasonic echolocation clicks at sound pressure levels ranging from 199 to 226 dB re 1 μPa, likely because these clicks were outside of squid hearing range (Wilson et al. 2007). However, squid exhibited alarm responses when exposed to broadband sound from an approaching seismic airgun with received levels exceeding 145 to 150 dB re 1 μPa2‐s root mean square (rms) (McCauley et al. 2000). Aquatic invertebrates may produce and use sound in territorial behavior, to deter predators, to find a mate, and to pursue courtship (Popper et al. 2001). Some crustaceans produce sound by rubbing or closing hard body parts together, such as lobsters and snapping shrimp (Au and Banks 1998; Latha et al. 2005; Patek and Caldwell 2006). The snapping shrimp chorus makes up a significant portion of the 4‐6 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ambient noise budget in many locales (Au and Banks 1998; Cato and Bell 1992). Each click is up to 215 dB re 1 µPa, with a peak around 2 to 5 kHz (Au and Banks 1998; Heberholz and Schmitz 2001). Other crustaceans make low‐frequency rasping or rumbling noises, perhaps used in defense or territorial display, that are often obscured by ambient noise (Patek and Caldwell 2006; Patek et al. 2009). Reef noises, such as fish pops and grunts, sea urchin grazing (around 1.0 kHz to 1.2 kHz), and snapping shrimp noises (around 5 kHz) (Radford et al. 2010), may be used as a cue by some aquatic invertebrates. Nearby reef noises were observed to affect movements and settlement behavior of coral and crab larvae (Jeffs et al. 2003; Radford et al. 2007; Stanley et al. 2010; Vermeij et al. 2010). Larvae of other crustacean species, including pelagic and nocturnally emergent species that benefit from avoiding predators associated with coral reefs, appear to avoid reef noises (Simpson et al. 2011). Detection of reef noises is likely limited to short distances (less than 330 ft. [100 m]) (Vermeij et al. 2010). 4.1.1.1
Non-Impulsive Stressors
Sonar and other non‐impulsive sound sources (e.g., vessel noise) emit sound waves into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and communicate. This section analyzes the potential impacts of these acoustic sources on EFH and HAPC resulting from training and testing activities within the Study Area. Unlike explosives and other impulsive stressors, only water column EFH and HAPC within the Study Area may be temporarily impacted by non‐impulsive sound effects. The analysis of impacts on the water column environment for fish and invertebrates is limited to physical injury or mortality where those impacts may occur. Hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, and behavioral reactions to impulsive stressors beyond the range of physical impacts are assumed but not quantified, and included with the physical impacts. If there is no physical injury or mortality anticipated, the impact on water column EFH is assessed qualitatively. 4.1.1.1.1
Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources
Most active systems operate within specific frequencies, although some harmonic frequencies may be emitted at lower sound pressure levels. Sonar use associated with anti‐submarine warfare would emit the most non‐impulsive sound underwater during training and testing activities. Sonar use associated with mine warfare would also contribute a notable portion of overall non‐impulsive sound. Other sources of non‐impulsive noise include acoustic communications, sonar used in navigation, and other sound sources used in testing. General categories of sonar systems are described in Section 2.3.1 (Sonar Systems and Other Acoustic Sensors). The hours of usage of each acoustic source class proposed is shown in Table 4‐3. Underwater sound propagation is highly dependent upon environmental characteristics such as bathymetry, bottom type, water depth, temperature, and salinity. The sound received at a particular location will be different than near the source due to the interaction of many factors, including propagation loss; how the sound is reflected, refracted, or scattered; the potential for reverberation; and interference due to multi‐path propagation. 4‐7 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 4‐3: Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Source Classes for the Proposed Action (annual hours) Source Class
Category
Airguns (AG) Used
during swimmer
defense and diver
deterrent activities
Anti-Submarine
Warfare (ASW)
Tactical sources used
during anti-submarine
warfare training and
testing activities
Low-Frequency (LF)
Sources that produce
signals less than 1 kHz
High-Frequency (HF)
and Very HighFrequency (VHF):
Tactical and nontactical sources that
produce signals
greater than 10 kHz
but less than 180 kHz
Mid-Frequency (MF)
Tactical and nontactical sources that
produce signals from 1
to 10 kHz
Source
Class
AG*
Description
3
Up to 60 in. airguns (e.g., Sercel MiniG)
Annual
Training
Hours
Annual
Testing
Hours
0
5*
ASW1
Mid-frequency Deep Water Active
Distributed System (DWADS)
224
224
ASW2*
Mid-frequency Multistatic Active
Coherent sonobuoy (e.g., AN/SSQ125)
1,800*
2,260*
ASW2H
Mid-frequency High Duty Cycle
sonobuoy system
0
255
ASW3
Mid-frequency towed active acoustic
countermeasure systems (e.g.,
AN/SLQ-25)
16,561
1,278
ASW4*
Mid-frequency expendable active
acoustic device countermeasures (e.g.,
MK 3)
1,540*
477*
LF4
Low-frequency sources equal to 180
dB and up to 200 dB
0
52
LF5
Low-frequency sources less than 180
dB
0
2,160
LF6
Low-frequency sonars currently in
development (e.g., anti-submarine
warfare sonars associated with the
Littoral Combat Ship)
0
192
HF1
Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g.,
AN/BQQ-10)
1,754
1,025
HF3
Other hull-mounted submarine sonars
(classified)
0
273
HF4
Mine detection, classification, and
neutralization sonar (e.g., AN/SQS-20)
4,848
1,336
HF5
Active sources (greater than 200 dB)
not otherwise binned
0
1,094
HF6
Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up
to 200 dB) not otherwise binned
0
3,460
MF1
Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g.,
AN/SQS-53C and AN/SQS-60)
11,588
180
MF1K
Kingfisher mode associated with MF1
sonars
88
18
MF2
Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g.,
AN/SQS-56)
3,060
84
MF2K
Kingfisher mode associated with MF2
sonars
34
0
MF3
Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g.,
AN/BQQ-10)
2,336
392
*Note: These sources are measured by items, not hours.
4‐8 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 4‐3: Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Source Classes for the Proposed Action (annual hours) (continued) Source Class
Category
Source
Class
Description
Annual
Training
Hours
Annual
Testing
Hours
Mid-Frequency (MF)
Tactical and nontactical sources that
produce signals from 1
to 10 kHz
(continued)
MF4
Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars
(e.g., AN/AQS-22 and AN/AQS-13)
888
693
MF5
Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g.,
DICASS)
13,718*
5,024*
MF6
Active underwater sound signal
devices (e.g., MK 84)
0
540*
MF8
Active sources (greater than 200 dB)
not otherwise binned
0
2
MF9
Active sources (equal to 180 dB and
up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned
0
3,039
MF10
Active sources (greater than 160 dB,
but less than 180 dB) not otherwise
binned
0
35
MF11
Hull-mounted surface ship sonars
with an active duty cycle greater than
80%
1,120
0
MF12
High duty cycle – variable depth
sonar
1,094
336
0
4,995
0
2,700
0
4,956
Acoustic Modems (M)
Transmit data
acoustically through the
water
Synthetic Aperture
Sonar (SAS): Sonar in
which active acoustic
signals are postprocessed to form highresolution images of
the seafloor
Swimmer Detection
Sonar (SD) Used to
detect divers and
submerged swimmers
Torpedoes (TORP)
Source classes
associated with active
acoustic signals
produced by torpedoes
M3
SAS1
SAS2
Mid-frequency acoustic modems
(greater than 190 dB)
MF SAS systems
HF SAS systems
SAS3
VHF SAS systems
0
3,360
SD1
High-frequency sources with short
pulse lengths, used for the detection
of swimmers and other objects for the
purpose of port security.
0
38
TORP1*
Lightweight torpedo (e.g., MK 46, MK
54, or Surface Ship Defense System)
170*
701*
400*
732*
TORP2*
Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48)
*Note: These sources are measured by items, not hours.
A very simple estimate of sonar transmission loss can be calculated using the spherical spreading law, TL = 20 log10r, where r is the distance from the sound source and TL is the transmission loss in decibels. While a simple example is provided here for illustration, the Navy Acoustic Effects Model takes into account the influence of multiple factors to predict acoustic propagation (U.S. Department of the Navy 2012b).The simplified estimate of spreading loss for a ping from a hull‐mounted tactical sonar with a 4‐9 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment representative source level of 235 decibels (dB) references to (re) 1 micropascal (µPa) is shown in Figure 4‐1. The figure shows that sound levels drop off significantly near the source, followed by a more steady reduction with distance. Most non‐impulsive sound sources used during training and testing have sound source levels lower than this example. Figure 4‐1: Estimate of Spreading Loss for a 235 dB re 1 µPa Sound Source Assuming Simple Spherical Spreading Loss Most use of active acoustic sources involves a single unit or several units (ship, submarine, aircraft, or other platform) employing a single active sonar source in addition to sound sources used for communication, navigation, and measuring oceanographic conditions. Anti‐submarine warfare activities may also use an acoustic target or an acoustic decoy. Anti-Submarine Warfare Sonars
Sonar used in anti‐submarine warfare are deployed on many platforms and are operated in various ways. Anti‐submarine warfare active sonar is usually mid‐frequency (1 to 10 kHz) because mid‐
frequency sound balances sufficient resolution to identify targets and distance within which threats can be identified. •
•
•
•
Ship tactical hull‐mounted sonar contributes the largest portion of overall non‐impulsive sound. Duty cycle can vary from about a ping per minute to continuously active. Sonar can be wide‐
ranging in a search mode or highly directional in a track mode. A submarine‘s mission revolves around its stealth; therefore, a submarine’s mid‐frequency sonar is used infrequently because its use would also reveal a submarine’s location. Aircraft‐deployed, mid‐frequency, anti‐submarine warfare systems include omnidirectional dipping sonar (deployed by helicopters) and omnidirectional sonobuoys (deployed from various aircraft), which have a typical duty cycle of several pings per minute. Acoustic decoys that continuously emulate broadband vessel sound or other vessel acoustic signatures may be deployed by ships and submarines. 4‐10 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing •
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Torpedoes use directional high‐frequency sonar when approaching and locking onto a target. Practice targets emulate the sound signatures of submarines or repeat received signals. Anti‐submarine warfare activities for all platforms typically would occur within and adjacent to existing OPAREAs beyond 12 nm, with the exception of sonar dipping activities conducted by helicopters closer to shore. In addition, hull‐mounted sonars may occasionally be used in port during system maintenance. Most anti‐submarine warfare activities involving submarines or submarine targets would occur in waters greater than 600 ft. (183 m) deep due to safety concerns about running aground at shallower depths. Most events usually occur over a limited area and are completed in less than one day, often within a few hours. Multi‐day anti‐submarine warfare events requiring coordination of movement and effort between multiple platforms with active sonar over a larger area occur less often, but constitute a large portion of the overall non‐impulsive underwater noise that would be impacted by Navy activities. For example, the largest event, a composite training unit exercise, would have periods of concentrated, near‐continuous anti‐submarine warfare sonar use by several platforms during a several‐week period. Mine Warfare Sonars
Sonar used to locate mines and other small objects is typically high frequency, which provides higher resolution. Mine detection sonar is deployed at variable depths on moving platforms to sweep a suspected mined area (towed by ships, helicopters, or unmanned underwater vehicles). Mid‐frequency hull‐mounted sonar can also be used in an object detection mode known as “Kingfisher” mode. Mine detection sonar use would be concentrated in areas where practice mines are deployed, typically in water depths less than 200 ft. (61 m). Most events usually occur over a limited area and are completed in less than one day, often within a few hours. Other Active Acoustic Sources
Active sound sources used for navigation and obtaining oceanographic information (e.g., depth, bathymetry, and speed) are typically directional, have high duty cycles, and cover a wide range of frequencies, from mid frequency to very high frequency. These sources are similar to the navigation systems on standard large commercial and oceanographic vessels. Sound sources used in communications are typically high frequency or very high frequency. These sound sources could be used by vessels during most activities and while transiting throughout the Study Area. Potential Impacts to the Water Column
Sonar and other active acoustic sources would not disturb the substrate, but they could affect the pelagic water column as a habitat for fish and invertebrates. The impact on fish and invertebrates could be injury or death, hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress or behavioral reactions. The impacts of non‐impulsive sound are described for fish, with invertebrate considered even less sensitive to sound effects (see fish or invertebrate “hearing and vocalization” headings under section 4.1.1 [Acoustic and Explosive Stressors]). Potential direct injuries from non‐impulsive sound sources, such as sonar, are unlikely because of the relatively lower peak pressures and slower rise times than potentially injurious sources such as explosives. Non‐impulsive sources also lack the strong shock wave such as that associated with an explosion. Therefore, direct injury is not likely to occur from exposure to non‐impulsive sources such as sonar, vessel noise, or subsonic aircraft noise. The theories of sonar induced acoustic resonance, bubble formation, neurotrauma, and lateral line system injury are discussed below, although these phenomena are difficult to recreate under real‐world conditions and are therefore unlikely to occur. 4‐11 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Two reports examined a suite of impacts from mid‐frequency sonar‐like signals (1.5 to 6.5 kHz) on larval and juvenile fish of several species (Jørgensen et al. 2005; Kvadsheim and Sevaldsen 2005). In the first study, Jørgensen et al. (2005) exposed larval and juvenile fish to various sounds in order to investigate potential effects on survival, development, and behavior. The study used herring (Clupea harengus) (standard lengths 0.7 to 2 in. [2 to 5 cm]), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) (standard length 0.7 and 2 in. [2 and 6 cm]), saithe (Pollachius virens) (1.5 in. [4 cm]), and spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor) (1.5 in. [4 cm]) at different developmental stages. The researchers placed the fish in plastic bags 10 ft. (3 m) from the sound source and exposed them to between four and 100 pulses of one‐second duration of pure tones at 1.5, 4, and 6.5 kHz. The fish in only two groups out of the 82 groups tested exhibited any adverse effects. These two groups were both composed of herring, a hearing specialist, and were tested with sound pressure levels of 189 dB re 1 µPa, which resulted in a post‐exposure mortality of 20 to 30 percent. In the remaining 80 groups tested, there were no observed effects on behavior, growth (length and weight), or the survival of fish that were kept as long as 34 days post exposure. While statistically significant losses were documented in the two groups impacted, the researchers only tested that particular sound level once, so it is not known if this increased mortality was due to the level of the test signal or to other unknown factors. High sound pressure levels may cause bubbles to form from micronuclei in the blood stream or other tissues of animals, possibly causing embolism damage (Ketten 1998). Fish have small capillaries where these bubbles could be caught and lead to the rupturing of the capillaries and internal bleeding. It has also been speculated that this phenomena could also take place in the eyes of fish due to potentially high gas saturation within the fish’s eye tissues (Popper and Hastings 2009). As reviewed in Popper and Hastings (2009), Hastings (1990; 1995) found ‘acoustic stunning’ (loss of consciousness) in blue gouramis (Trichogaster trichopterus) following an 8‐minute exposure to a 150 Hz pure tone with a peak SPL of 198 dB re 1 µPa. This species of fish has an air bubble in the mouth cavity directly adjacent to the animal’s braincase that may have caused this injury. Hastings (1990; 1995) also found that goldfish exposed to two hours of continuous wave sound at 250 Hz with peak pressures of 204 dB re 1 µPa, and fathead minnows exposed to 0.5 hours of 150 Hz continuous wave sound at a peak level of 198 dB re 1 µPa did not survive. The only study on the effect of exposure of the lateral line system to continuous wave sound (conducted on one freshwater species) suggests no effect on these sensory cells by intense pure tone signals (Hastings et al. 1996). The most familiar effect of exposure to high intensity sound is hearing loss, meaning an increase in the hearing threshold. This phenomenon is called a noise‐induced threshold shift, or simply a threshold shift (Miller 1974). A temporary threshold shift is a temporary, recoverable loss of hearing sensitivity over a small range of frequencies related to the sound source to which the fish was exposed. A temporary threshold shift may last several minutes to several weeks and the duration is related to the intensity of the sound source and the duration of the sound (including multiple exposures). A permanent threshold shift is non‐recoverable, results from the destruction of tissues within the auditory system, and can occur over a small range of frequencies related to the sound exposure. As with temporary threshold shift, the animal does not become deaf but requires a louder sound stimulus (relative to the amount of permanent threshold shift) to detect a sound within the affected frequencies; however, in this case, the affect is permanent. 4‐12 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Permanent hearing loss or permanent threshold shift has yet to be documented in fish. The sensory hair cells of the inner ear in fish can regenerate after they are damaged, unlike in mammals where sensory hair cells loss is permanent (Lombarte and Popper 1994; Smith et al. 2006). As a consequence, any hearing loss in fish may be as temporary as the timeframe required to repair or replace the sensory cells that were damaged or destroyed (Smith et al. 2006). Although some species may be able to produce sound at higher frequencies (greater than 1 kHz), vocal marine fish largely communicate below the range of mid‐frequency levels used by most sonars. Further, most marine fish species are not expected to be able to detect sounds in the mid‐frequency range of the operational sonars. The fish species that are known to detect mid‐frequencies (including most clupeids) do not have their best sensitivities in the range of the operational sonars. Thus, these fish can only hear mid‐frequency sounds when sonars are operating at high energy levels or the fish are in proximity to the sonars. Considering the low‐frequency detection of most marine species and the limited time of exposure due to the moving sound sources, most mid‐frequency active sonar used in the Study Area would not have the potential to substantially mask key environmental sounds. While not likely for mid‐frequency active sonars, the low‐frequency active sonars may have a greater ability to mask biologically important sounds due to their operational frequency range coinciding with range detectable and used for communication by most marine fish species. However, low‐frequency active usage is rare and most low‐frequency active operations are conducted in deeper waters, usually beyond the continental shelf break. The majority of fish species, including those that are the most highly vocal, exist on the continental shelf and within nearshore, estuarine areas. Based on the low level and short duration of potential exposure for most marine fish, it is unlikely that the use of the low‐frequency active sonars will cause substantial masking of biologically important sounds. Fish within a few tens of kilometers around low‐frequency active sonar could experience brief periods of masking while the system is used, with effects most pronounced closer to the source. However, overall effects would be localized and infrequent. Exposure of many fish species to sonars and other acoustic sources has the potential to result in stress to the animal and may also elicit alterations in normal behavior patterns (e.g., swimming, feeding, resting, spawning, etc.). Such impacts may have the potential to affect the long‐term growth and survival of an individual. However, due to the temporary and infrequent nature of sonar use in the Study Area, the resulting stress on fish is not likely to impact the health of resident populations. Likewise, although some fish in the vicinity of training and testing activities may react to sonar, the sounds are relatively temporary and infrequent in nature. Any behavioral changes are not expected to have lasting effects on the survival, growth, or reproduction of fish species. While some marine fish may be able to detect mid‐frequency sounds, most marine fish are hearing generalists and have their best hearing sensitivity below mid‐frequency sonar. If they occur, behavioral responses would be brief, and unlikely to have any substantial costs. Kvadsheim and Sevaldsen (2005) reported no behavioral reaction of herrings to low‐ and mid‐frequency sonar. Sustained auditory damage is not expected. Sensitive life stages (juvenile fish, larvae, and eggs) very close to the sonar source may experience injury or mortality, but area‐wide effects would likely be minor. For these reasons, the use of mid‐frequency sonar would not significantly affect fish or fish populations. Since high‐frequency sound attenuates quickly in the water, high levels of sound would be restricted to areas near the source. Most species would probably not hear these sounds and would therefore 4‐13 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment experience no disturbance, and even for fish able to hear sound at high frequencies, only short‐term exposure would occur and effects would be transitory and of little biological consequence. In summary, sonar use could affect marine fish species by masking ecologically important sounds, inducing stress, altering behaviors, or changing hearing thresholds. Hearing specialists are more likely to be impacted than generalists due to their ability to detect both low‐ and mid‐frequency sounds. This could be particularly relevant to the Clupeidae family (herrings), as some species can detect ultrasonic sounds in the range of mid‐ and high‐frequency sonars. However, any such effects would be temporary and infrequent as a vessel operating mid‐frequency sonar transits an area. There is no information available to suggest that exposure to non‐impulsive acoustic sources results in fish mortality. As such, sonar use is unlikely to impact fish species. Training Activities
Training activities involving the use of sonar would be concentrated in the HRC and SOCAL OPAREAs. The annual hours of sonar and other active acoustic sources from Navy training activities are listed in Table 4‐3. Based on the hearing physiology of fish and invertebrates (“Hearing and Vocalization” headings under Section 4.1.1 [Acoustic Stressors]), temporary nature of sonar and other active acoustic sources for training, and studies suggesting minimal impacts on species with hearing specializations (“Potential Impacts to the Water Column” heading under Section 4.1.1.1.1 [Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources]), there may be temporary and individually minimal adverse impacts on water column EFH and HAPCs from the Proposed Action. Testing Activities
Testing activities involving the use of sonar could occur in multiple locations in the HRC and SOCAL OPAREAs. The annual hours of sonar and other active acoustic sources from Navy testing activities are listed in Table 4‐3. Based on the hearing physiology of fish and invertebrates (“Hearing and Vocalization” headings under Section 4.1.1 [Acoustic Stressors]), temporary nature of sonar and other active acoustic sources for training, and studies suggesting minimal impacts on species with hearing specializations (“Potential Impacts to the Water Column” heading under Section 4.1.1.1.1 [Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources]), there may be temporary and individually minimal adverse impacts on water column EFH and HAPCs from the Proposed Action. 4.1.1.1.2
Vessel Noise
Naval vessels (including ships, small craft, and submarines) would produce low‐frequency, broadband underwater sound. In the EEZ, Navy ships are estimated to contribute roughly one percent of the total energy due to large vessel broadband noise (Mintz and Filadelfo 2011b; Mintz and Parker 2006). Vessel movements involve transit to and from ports to various locations within the Study Area, and many ongoing and proposed training and testing activities within the Study Area involve maneuvers by various types of surface ships, boats, and submarines (collectively referred to as vessels). Operations involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a few hours up to two weeks. Navy traffic would be concentrated near ports or naval installations and training ranges (e.g., San Diego, SSTC, San Clemente Island, Pearl Harbor) (Mintz and Filadelfo 2011a). Additionally, a variety of smaller craft will be operated within the Study Area. 4‐14 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Vessel movements have the potential to expose fish to sound and general disturbance, which could result in short‐term behavioral or physiological responses (e.g., avoidance, stress, increased heart rate). While vessel movements have the potential to expose fish occupying the water column to sound and general disturbance, potentially resulting in short‐term behavioral or physiological responses, such responses would not be expected to compromise the general health or condition of individual fish. Based on the information above, water column EFH would not be adversely impacted from vessel noise generated from Navy training and testing activities. 4.1.1.2
Impulsive Stressors
Underwater explosions, impact pile driving, swimmer defense air guns, and weapons firing noise all produce a rapid pressure rise and high peak pressure (see relevant section below for supporting details). This section analyzes the potential impacts of these explosive and impulsive sources on EFH and HAPC resulting from training and testing activities within the Study Area. Unlike non‐impulsive stressors, all habitats within the Study Area may be physically impacted by impulsive sound effects. The analysis of impacts on the water column environment for fish and invertebrates is limited to physical injury or mortality. Hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, and behavioral reactions to impulsive stressors beyond the range of physical impacts are assumed but not quantified, and included with the physical impacts. Section 4.1.1.1 (Non‐Impulsive Stressors) describes the non‐lethal impacts of sound on fish and invertebrates. 4.1.1.2.1
Explosives
Explosive detonations are associated with high‐explosive ordnance, including bombs, missiles, torpedoes, and naval gun shells; mines and charges; explosive sonobuoys; anti‐swimmer grenades, and ship shock trial charges. Most explosive detonations during training and testing would be at or below the water surface, although charges associated with mine neutralization could occur near the ocean bottom. While most detonations would occur in waters greater than 33 fm (61 m) in depth, mine neutralization events would typically occur in shallower waters (less than 33 fm [61 m]). Training and testing activities using explosions generally would not occur within 1.6 nm of shore or within 3 nm of bays, rivers, or estuaries, with the exception of civilian port defense and designated underwater detonation areas in nearshore waters. In general, explosive events would consist of a single explosion or multiple explosions over a short period. During training, all large, high‐explosive bombs would be detonated near the surface over deep water. Bombs with high‐explosive ordnance would be fused to detonate on contact with the water, and it is estimated that 99 percent of them would explode within 5 ft. of the ocean surface (U.S. Department of the Navy 2005b). Table 4‐4 shows parameters of some ordnance detonated during training and testing activities. Underwater explosions create a cavity filled with high‐pressure gas, which pushes the water out against the opposing external hydrostatic pressure. At the instant of explosion, a certain amount of gas is instantaneously generated at high pressure and temperature, creating a bubble. In addition, the heat causes a certain amount of water to vaporize, adding to the volume of the bubble. This action immediately begins to force the water in contact with the blast front in an outward direction. This intense pressure wave, called a “shock wave,” passes into the surrounding medium and travels faster than the speed of sound. Noise associated with the blast is also transmitted into the surrounding 4‐15 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment medium as acoustic waves. As the pressure waves generated by the explosion travel, they will interact with the surface and seafloor, lose energy, and be perceived as acoustic waves. Table 4‐4: Representative Ordnance, Net Explosive Weights, and Detonation Depths Ordnance
M3A2 anti-swimmer concussion grenades
76 millimeter round
Sonobuoy charge
Airborne mine neutralization system
(AMNS) charges
Hellfire AGM 114 rocket
5 in. Naval gunfire
Underwater mine neutralization charges
Maverick missile
MK-20 bomb
MK-82 bomb
MK-83 bomb
Explosive ordnance detonation (EOD)
charges
MK-48 torpedo
MK-84 bomb
Line charge
Shock charge (Zumwalt class Destroyers
and Littoral Combat Ships)
Shock charge (Aircraft Carriers)
Net Explosive Weight (lb.)
Detonation Depth
0.5
2
5
5
At or just below water’s surface
1 feet (ft.) (0.3 meters [m])
Throughout the water column
Subsurface
8
8
20
100
110
192
416
5, 10, 75, 600
At or just below water’s surface
1 ft. (0.3 m)
Throughout the water column
At or just below water’s surface
2 to 3 ft. (0.6 to 0.9 m)
2 to 3 ft. (0.6 to 0.9 m)
2 to 3 ft. (0.6 to 0.9 m)
Throughout the water column
650
945
3,625
14,500
58,000
Subsurface
2 to 3 ft. (0.6 to 0.9 m)
Surf zone bottom
200 ft. (61 m) in > 600 ft. (183 m) of
water
200 ft. (61 m) in > 600 ft. (183 m) of
water
Notes: ft. = feet, m = meters, lb. = pounds
The detonation depth of an explosive is important because of the propagation effect known as surface‐
image interference. For sources located near the sea surface, a distinct interference pattern arises from reflection from the water's surface. As the source depth or the source frequency decreases, these two paths increasingly, destructively interfere with each other, reaching total cancellation at the surface (barring surface reflection scattering loss). Since most explosive sources used in military activities are munitions that detonate essentially upon impact, the effective source depths are quite shallow and, therefore, the surface‐image interference effect can be pronounced. Potential Impacts to the Water Column
An explosion detonated near the surface would not disturb the substrate, but the shock wave could affect the pelagic water column as a habitat for fish and invertebrates. The expanding gases can set up a pulsating bubble whose recurring pressure waves also may contribute significantly to damage. Many animals, especially smaller animals, are unlikely to survive if they are present in the region of bulk cavitation. Cavitation occurs when shock waves, which are generated by the underwater detonation of an explosive charge, propagate to the surface and are reflected back into the water as rarefaction (or negative pressure) waves. These rarefaction waves cause a state of tension to occur within a large region of water. Since water cannot ordinarily sustain a significant amount of tension, it cavitates and the surrounding pressure drops to the vapor pressure of water. The region in which this occurs is known as the cavitation region, and includes all water cavitating at any time after the detonation of the explosive charge. The upper and lower boundaries form what is referred to as the cavitation envelope 4‐16 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (U.S. Department of the Navy 2008e). A water hammer pulse is generated when the upper and lower layers of the cavitation region rejoin (close). Concern about potential fish mortality associated with the use of at‐sea explosives led military researchers to develop mathematical and computer models that predict safe ranges for fish and other animals from explosions of various sizes (Goertner 1982; Goertner et al. 1994; Yelverton et al. 1975). Young (1991) provides equations that allow estimation of the potential effect of underwater explosions on fish possessing swim bladders using a damage prediction method developed by Goertner (1982). Young’s parameters include the size of the fish and its location relative to the explosive source, but are independent of environmental conditions (e.g., depth of fish and explosive shot frequency). An example of such model predictions is shown in Table 4‐5, which lists estimated explosive‐effects ranges using Young’s (1991) method for fish possessing swim bladders exposed to explosions that would typically occur during training exercises. The 10 percent mortality range is the distance beyond which 90 percent of the fish present would be expected to survive. It is difficult to predict the range of more subtle effects causing injury but not mortality (Continental Shelf Associates Inc. 2004). Table 4‐5: Estimated Explosive Effects Ranges for Fish with Swim Bladders Training Operation and Type
of Ordnance
10% Mortality Range (ft.)
NEW (lb.)
Depth of
Explosion (ft.)
1 oz. Fish
1 lb. Fish
30 lb. Fish
0.002
3.24
20
10
20
30
40
366
666
28
255
464
18
164
299
8
100
3.3
3.3
317
643
221
449
142
288
8
1
244
170
109
109.7
192.2
415.8
945
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
660
772
959
1,206
460
539
668
841
296
346
430
541
Mine Neutralization
MK-103 Charge
AMNS Charge
20-lb NEW UNDET Charge
Missile Exercise
Hellfire
Maverick
Firing Exercise with IMPASS
HE Naval Gun Shell, 5-inch
Bombing Exercise
MK-20
MK-82
MK-83
MK-84
Notes: NEW = Net Explosive Weight, UNDET = Underwater Detonation, lb = pound, ft. = feet, oz. = ounce
Fish not killed or driven from a location by an explosion might change their behavior, feeding pattern, or distribution. 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 typical response to fear or to avoid negative stimuli, might experience an increase in the volume of gas‐filled organs due to the reduction in ambient pressure. The resulting inflation might render the fish unable to immediately return to its normal habitat depth because the expanded organs make the buoyancy of the fish too great to overcome by swimming downward. Stunning from pressure waves could also temporarily immobilize fish, making them more susceptible to predation. The few studies of marine invertebrates (crustaceans and mollusks) exposed to explosions show a range of impacts, from mortality close to the source to no observable effects. Limited studies of crustaceans have examined mortality rates at various distances from detonations in shallow water (Aplin 1947; 4‐17 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Chesapeake Biological Laboratory 1948; Gaspin et al. 1976). Similar studies of mollusks have shown them to be more resistant than crustaceans to explosive impacts (Chesapeake Biological Laboratory 1948; Gaspin et al. 1976). Other invertebrates found in association with mollusks, such as sea anemones, polychaete worms, isopods, and amphipods, were observed to be undamaged in areas near detonations (Gaspin et al. 1976). Using data from these experiments, Young (1991) developed curves that estimate the distance from an explosion beyond which at least 90 percent of certain marine invertebrates would survive, depending on the weight of the explosive (Figure 4‐2). In deeper waters where most detonations would occur near the water surface, most benthic marine invertebrates would be beyond the 90 percent survivability ranges shown above, even for larger explosives (up to source class E12 [601 to 1,000 lb. NEW]). Figure 4‐2: Prediction of Distance to 10 Percent Mortality of Marine Invertebrates Exposed to an Underwater Explosion (Young 1991) The number of fish or invertebrates affected by an underwater explosion would depend on the population density in the vicinity of the blast, as well as factors discussed above such as NEW, depth of the explosion, and fish size. For example, if an explosion occurred in the middle of a dense school of menhaden, herring, or other schooling fish, a large number of fish could be killed. Individually, such explosions represent minimal mortality in terms of the total population of such fish in the Study Area. The cumulative effect of multiple explosions over a period of time could have greater than minimal impacts on fish or invertebrate populations, but this is very difficult to quantify without density and biomass estimates of fish within the impact footprint. The worst case scenario for explosive impacts on fish and invertebrates in the water column is based on information from Table 4‐4 (representative explosive munitions), Table 4‐5 (10 percent mortality range for 30 lb. (13.6 kg) fish, and Figure 4‐2 (10 percent mortality range for crab). The range to less than 10 percent mortality is very similar for both a 30 lb. (13.6 kg) fish and a crab. The total impact area assumes no overlap in footprints, which is unlikely considering the point of targets in training and testing activities (e.g., hit the target). Such calculations provide one of the variables necessary in determining 4‐18 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment the level impact. A determination of population level impacts requires more information on the density and biomass of managed species and life‐stages in the Study Area than is currently available. Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrates and Biogenic Habitats
An explosive detonated near the seafloor could disturb the substrate and associated biogenic habitats. For a specific size of explosive charge, crater depths and widths would vary depending on depth of the charge and substrate type. There is a nonlinear relationship between crater size and depth of water, with relatively small crater sizes in the shallowest water, followed by a spike in size at some intermediate depth, and a decline to an average flat line at greater depth (Gorodilov and Sukhotin 1996; O'Keeffe and Young 1984). Radii of the craters reportedly vary little among unconsolidated substrate types (O'Keeffe and Young 1984). On substrate types with non‐adhesive particles (everything except clay), the effects should be temporary, whereas craters in clay may persist for years (O'Keeffe and Young 1984). The production of craters in soft bottom could uncover subsurface hard bottom, representing an alteration of marine substrate types (refer to training and testing activities sections for spatial analysis). On hard substrates, energy from bottom detonations is reflected to a greater degree than corresponding detonations on soft bottom (Berglind et al. 2009; Keevin and Hempen 1997). Due to lack of accurate and specific information on hard bottom types, the worst‐case scenario for hard bottom impacted is equal to the area of soft bottom impacted (refer to training and testing activities sections for spatial analysis). The associated biogenic habitats are assumed to be destroyed with the bottom impact. Mine neutralization training using divers and remotely operated vehicles, airborne mine neutralization system AN/ASQ‐235 training, and MK marine mammal/marine mammal systems training would involve explosions on or near the seafloor, which could affect marine habitats. Table 4‐6 lists training and testing activities that include seafloor explosions, along with the location of the activity and the associated explosives charges. Primarily soft‐bottom habitat would be utilized for underwater detonations. Table 4‐6: Training and Testing Activities that Include Seafloor Explosions Activity
Training
Mine
Neutralization
(Explosive
Ordnance
Disposal)
Mine
Neutralization
(Remotely
Operated Vehicle)
Marine Mammal/
Marine Mammal
Systems
Operations
Explosive
Charge (lb.,
NEW1)
2
Range Complex
Underwater
Detonations
1 to 60
796
3.3, 3.57, and
10 to 15
28
13 or 29
8
SOCAL
SCI Northwest Harbor,
Horse Beach Cove,
SOAR, SWTR, in SWAT
offshore waters.
SSTC Boat Lanes 1 to 14
SOCAL – TAR 2,
TAR 3, TAR 21, SWAT
1&2, SOAR, SWTR SSTC
Boat Lanes 1 to 14
SSTC Boat
Lanes 1 to 14
1
2
Hawaii
Puuloa Underwater
Range, Barbers Point
Underwater Range,
NISMF, Lima Landing,
Ewa Training Minefield.
-
Hawaii OPAREA,
Kingfisher, SWM, Sonar
Training Area.
NEW is the actual weight in pounds of explosive mixtures or compounds, Maximum explosive charge for training activities
in SSTC is 29 lb. net explosive weight.
Notes: NEW = net explosive weight, SOCAL = Southern California, SCI = San Clemente Island, SOAR = Southern California
Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, SWTR = Shallow Water Training Range, SWAT = Special Warfare Training Area, CPAAA =
Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area, SSTC = Silver Strand Training Complex, NISMF = Naval Inactive Ship
Maintenance Facility, OPAREA = Operating Area, SWM = Shallow Water Minefield
4‐19 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Under the Proposed Action, an estimated 832 underwater explosions would occur on or near the seafloor within the Study Area, as identified in Table 4‐6. Underwater explosions near the seafloor would primarily occur in the nearshore portions of the Study Area, with most occurring in SSTC. Underwater explosives placed on or near the seafloor would range from 1 to 60 lb. (0.4 to 27 kg), NEW. The determination of effect for training activities on the seafloor is based on the largest net‐weight charge for each training activity: 15 lb. (6.8 kg), 29 lb. (13 kg), and 60 lb. (27 kg) (NEW) explosions. Explosions produce high energies that would be partially absorbed and partially reflected by the seafloor. Hard bottoms would mostly reflect the energy (Berglind et al. 2009), whereas a crater would be formed in soft bottom (Gorodilov and Sukhotin 1996). The area and depth of the crater would vary according to depth, bottom composition, and size of the explosive charge. The relationship between crater size and depth of water is non‐linear, with relatively small crater sizes in the shallowest water, followed by a spike in size at some intermediate depth, and a decline to an average flat‐line at greater depth (Gorodilov and Sukhotin 1996; O'Keeffe and Young 1984). In general, training activities that include seafloor detonations occur in water depths ranging from 6 ft. (1.8 m) to about 100 ft. (30 m). Based on Gorodilov and Sukhotin (1996), the depth (h) and radius (R) of a crater from an underwater explosion over soft bottom is calculated using the charge radius (r0) 6 multiplied by a number determined by solving for h or R along a non‐linear relationship between [depth of water/r0] and [h or R/r0]. For example, a 60 lb. (27 kg) explosive charge (r0 = 0.16 m) on a sandy bottom would produce a maximum crater size of approximately 31 ft. (10 m) in diameter and 2.6 ft. (0.8 m) deep. The area of the crater on a sandy bottom would be 760 square feet (ft.2) (71 square meters [m2]). The displaced sand doubles the radius of the crater (O'Keeffe and Young 1984), yielding a crater diameter of 62 ft. (19 m) and an area of 3,060 ft.2 (284 m2) of impacted substrate. The area of impacted substrate for each 15 lb. (6.8 kg) and 29 lb. (13 kg) underwater explosion on the seafloor would be approximately 1,210 ft.2 (112 m2) and 1,880 ft.2 (174 m2), respectively. The radii of craters are expected to vary little among unconsolidated sediment types. On sediment types with non‐adhesive particles (everything except clay), the impacts should be temporary; craters in clay may persist for years (O'Keeffe and Young 1984). The production of craters in soft bottom could uncover subsurface hard bottom, altering marine substrate types. Hard substrates reflect more energy from bottom detonations than do soft bottoms (Keevin and Hempen 1997). The amount of consolidated substrate (i.e., bedrock) converted to unconsolidated sediment by surface explosions varies according to material types and degree of consolidation (i.e., rubble, bedrock). Because of a lack of accurate and specific information on hard bottom types, the impacted area is assumed to be equal to the area of soft bottom impacted. Potential exists for fracturing and damage to hard‐bottom habitat if underwater detonations occur over that type of habitat. Training Activities
Detonations on the seafloor would result in approximately 1,991,160 ft.2 (185,052 m2) of disturbed benthic habitat per year in the Study Area (Table 4‐7). Training activities at SSTC represent the highest intensity of bottom explosions (about 53 percent). The SSTC Boat Lanes would be the smallest training area for underwater detonations in the Study Area. Assuming a very unlikely disturbed area of approximately 814,483 ft.2 (75,668 m2) at SSTC, this area would account for approximately 0.3 percent of the available oceanside training area (14 Boat Lanes x 500 yd. x 4,000 yd. x 9 ft.2/square yard (yd.2) = Pounds per in.3 of TNT (1.64 grams/cubic centimeters) x number of pounds, then solving for radius in the geometry of a spherical volume 6
4‐20 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 252,000,000 ft.2 [23,400,000 m2]). However, recent mapping of benthic habitats is available for SSTC, and cobble and other hard bottom habitat are scattered throughout the area, and constitutes approximately nine percent of the available habitat. Although those areas should be avoided during training to the maximum extent practicable (See Section 5.0), assuming a worst‐case scenario an area covering approximately 3.2 percent of hard‐bottom substrate at SSTC could be permanently impacted. SSTC Boat Lanes are the smallest training area, so underwater detonations in HRC and SOCAL Range Complex would affect a smaller portion of the training area because training would occur in several training areas that are larger than SSTC. Therefore, underwater detonations in SOCAL Range Complex and HRC would have lesser impacts on bottom substrates than underwater detonations at SSTC. Training events that include bottom‐laid underwater explosions would be infrequent and the percentage of training area affected would be small, so the disturbed areas of soft bottom substrates would be expected to return to their previous condition, while hard bottom substrates may take longer to recover. Therefore, underwater explosions under the Proposed Action may result in short‐ to long‐
term impacts to soft bottom habitats and permanent impacts to hard bottom substrates. Table 4‐7: Bottom Detonations for Training Activities under Proposed Action Training
Area
Hawaii
Range
Complex
Southern
California
Range
Complex
Silver
Strand
Training
Complex
Total
Net
Explosive
Weight
(lb.)
Impact
Footprint
(m2)
60
284
82
23,288
15
60
112
284
8
300
896
85,200
308
86,096
NA
NA
20
422
2,240
73,428
0.01
3.13
0.01
0.33
442
75,668
832
185,052
Total (SOCAL)
15
29
112
174
Total (SSTC)
-
-
Number
of
Charges
Mapped Hard Substrate
Total Impact
Area (m2)
Mapped Soft Substrate
m2
%
Impact
m2
%
Impact
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
ND
NA
NA
2,343,939
3.23
22,451,959
0.34
2
Notes: (1) lb. = pound(s), m = square meters, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex, SSTC = Silver Strand Training Complex;
(2) Analysis assumes the largest charge, in terms of net explosive weight, for each training activity. ND –No Data; NA – Not Applicable;
Table 3.3-2 of EIS/OEIS lists the ranges of charges used for each training activity.
The training impacts of underwater explosives on any hard substrate are determined to be permanent although individually minimal throughout the Study Area, and in areas where habitat data are available (e.g., SSTC), based on the percentage of habitat present, an area covering approximately 3.2 percent of hard‐bottom substrate at SSTC could be impacted given a very unlikely worst case scenario. The impacts on soft bottom substrate are determined to be short to long term and individually minimal. The impact includes an area covering less than 0.4 percent of soft‐bottom substrate at SSTC, and less than 0.0002 percent of available substrate at HRC and SOCAL Range Complex. Training activities using explosives that could potentially affect water column EFH would be conducted throughout the Study Area. The activity areas for training and testing activities are shown on Figures 2‐1 to 2‐11, and the impact footprints presented in Table 4‐8 represents the zone of greater than 10 percent mortality of crab or 30 lb. fish (refer to Section 4.1.1.2.1 [Explosives] for details on methods). 4‐21 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment If all the munitions listed in Table 4‐8 were detonated such that their impact footprints did not overlap (very unlikely), the sum of potential temporary impacts per year on offshore waters EFH, by range complex, could be as much as: •
•
SOCAL Range Complex – 167 km2 impacted compared to approximately 411,588 km2 of ocean surface area (0.04 percent of available habitat). HRC – 68 km2 impacted compared to approximately 806,027 km2 of ocean surface area (0.008 percent of available habitat). Given that less than 0.02 percent of offshore ocean waters impacted using a very unlikely worst case scenario, the training impacts of underwater explosives on water column EFH is determined to be temporary and individually minimal throughout the Study Area.
Table 4‐8: Explosions in the Water Column from Training Activities (excluding explosion on or near the bottom), and their Impact on Water Column Essential Fish Habitat Munitions
Category
Torpedoes
Sonobuoys
Bombs
Rockets
Missiles
Large-Caliber
Projectiles
Medium-Caliber
Projectiles
10 lb. NEW Charges
20 lb. NEW Charges
60 lb. NEW Charges
100 lb. NEW
Charges
Training
Location
Number of
Explosions
Impact Footprint
(km2)1
6
2
480
120
74
166
760
3,800
146
330
1,894
4,244
20
6,640
13,920
320
2,490
5,644
20
59
479
40
367
46
18
0.4
0.1
2.8
0.7
6.3
14.2
5.6
27.8
3.9
8.9
13.8
31.0
0.1
11.6
24.4
0.6
20.5
46.6
0.2
0.7
5.6
0.8
7.5
1.2
0.5
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
Transit Corridor
HRC
SOCAL
Transit Corridor
HRC
SOCAL
Transit Corridor
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
1
The impact footprint represents the zone of less than 10 percent mortality of crab or 30 lb. fish
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex, NEW =
net explosive weight, lb. = pounds
4‐22 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Testing Activities
No testing activities with seafloor detonations are proposed, and therefore impacts to benthic substrate EFH would not occur. Testing activities using explosives that detonate at or near the surface could potentially affect water column EFH would be conducted throughout the Study Area. Relevant activities include airborne mine neutralization, explosive ordnance disposal mine neutralization and remotely operated mine countermeasures and neutralization. The activity areas for training and testing activities are shown on Figures 2‐1 to 2‐11, and the impact footprints presented in Table 4‐9 represents the zone of greater than 10 percent mortality of crab or 30 lb. (14 kg) fish (refer to Section 4.1.1.2.1 [Explosives] for details on methods). Table 4‐9: Explosions in the Water Column from Testing Activities (excluding explosion on or near the bottom), and their Impact on Water Column Essential Fish Habitat Testing
Munitions
Category
Torpedoes
Sonobuoys
Bombs
Rockets
Missiles
Large-Caliber
Projectiles
Medium-Caliber
Projectiles
10 lb. NEW Charges
20 lb. NEW Charges
60 lb. NEW Charges
100 lb. NEW
Charges
Location
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
Transit Corridor
HRC
SOCAL
Transit Corridor
HRC
SOCAL
Transit Corridor
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
HRC
SOCAL
1
Number of
Explosions
Impact
Footprint
(km2)1
29
8
500
2892
0
0
0
297
56
70
3,680
4,460
0
1,750
18,250
0
0
202
0
5
27
21
0
5
9
2.1
0.6
2.9
16.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
1.5
1.9
26.9
32.6
0.0
3.1
31.9
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.2
The impact footprint represents the zone of less than 10 percent mortality of crab or 30 lb.
(14 kg) fish.
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California Range Complex,
NEW = Net Explosive Weight
4‐23 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment If all the munitions listed in Table 4‐9 were detonated such that their impact footprints did not overlap (very unlikely), the sum of potential temporary impacts per year on offshore waters EFH, by range complex, could be as much as: •
•
SOCAL Range Complex – 88 km2 impacted compared to 411,588 km2 of ocean surface area (0.02 percent of available habitat). HRC – 37 km2 impacted compared to 806,027 km2 of ocean surface area (0.005 percent of available habitat). Given the less than 0.006 percent of offshore ocean waters impacted using a very unlikely worst case scenario, the testing impacts of underwater explosives on water column EFH is determined to be temporary and individually minimal throughout the Study Area. 4.1.1.2.2
Pile Driving
Pile driving would occur during the construction and removal phases of the elevated causeway training activities at the SSTC. The training involves the use of an impact hammer to dive the piles into the sediment and a vibratory hammer to later remove the piles. The pile driving locations are adjacent to Navy pierside locations in industrialized waterways that carry a high volume of vessel traffic in addition to Navy vessels using the pier. These coastal areas tend to have high ambient noise levels due to natural and anthropogenic sources present. The results to date show only the most limited mortality, and then only when fish are very close to an intense sound source. Whereas there is evidence that fish within a few meters of a pile driving operation would potentially be killed, very limited data suggest that fish further from the source are not killed, and may not be harmed. As a consequence of these limited and unpublished data, it is not possible to know the quantitative effects of pile driving on fish. Elevated Causeway System (ELCAS) pile installation and removal within the project area would result in temporary increased underwater noise levels. Underwater sound levels likely to result from unattenuated impact pile driving would be 190 dB re 1 µPa (rms), 210 dB re 1 µPa (peak), and 177 dB re 1 µPa2‐sec (sound exposure level) at 10 m. Underwater sound levels likely to result from vibratory pile driving would be 170 dB re 1 µPa (rms) at 5 fm (10 m). Since many fish use their swim bladders for buoyancy, they are susceptible to rapid expansion/decompression due to peak pressure waves from underwater noises (Hastings and Popper 2005a). At a sufficient level this exposure can be fatal. Recently, underwater noise effects criteria for fish were revised and accepted for in‐water projects following a multi‐agency agreement that included concurrence from National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group 2008). The underwater noise thresholds for fish for behavioral disturbance and the onset of injury are presented in Table 4‐10. The Navy evaluated the distance at which pile driving noise would meet or exceed these thresholds, resulting in zones within the water column where behavioral or injurious effects could occur. However, due to the absence of any data from which the density of fish species could be determined, the Navy was unable to calculate the number or percent of the fish population that may be exposed to these effects within each zone. As a result, the remaining analysis presents the distance(s) from the pile at which these criteria or effects would be experience by fish and a qualitative assessment of the impacts that these sounds would have on the behavior and physiology of these animals. For impact pile driving, the underwater noise threshold criteria for fish injury from a single pile strike occurs at a peak sound pressure level of 206 dB re 1 µPa. This sound level may be exceeded during 4‐24 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment impact pile driving within a circle centered at the location of the driven pile, out to a distance of approximately 60 ft. (18.3 m). Alternatively, fish can also be affected by the cumulative effects of underwater noise from impact pile driving, and the extent of effects is evaluated by calculating the accumulated sound exposure level, based on the number of strikes per day. An impact hammer could be used for up to 200 to 300 impact strikes per pile, with a speed of 30 to 50 strikes per minute. It is expected that any pile driven using an impact hammer would probably require more than one strike. The results of the cumulative noise analysis for this Proposed Action indicate that the 187 dB and 183 dB accumulated sound exposure level threshold could be exceeded within a circle centered at the location of the driven pile out to a distance of approximately 6.6 ft. (2.01 m), and 13.2 ft. (4.02 m), respectively. The accumulated sound exposure level distance is shorter than the distance to the peak pressure of 206 dB re 1 µPa, therefore the fish are likely to be injured from peak pressure before accumulating enough energy to cause injury. During impact pile driving, the associated underwater noise levels would result in behavioral responses, including avoidance of the pile driving location, and would have the potential to cause injury. Table 4‐10: Effects Range for Fish from Pile Driving Criteria/
Predicted
Effect
Onset of Injury
Behavioral
impacts1
Criteria
Distance of Effect for
Impact Hammer
(meters)
Distance of Effect for
Vibratory Pile Driving
(meters)
206 dB
re 1 µPa (peak)
18
N/A
Fish two grams
or greater
187 dB
re 1 µPa2-s (SEL)
2
N/A
Fish less than
two grams
183 dB
re 1 µPa2-s (SEL)
4
N/A
150 dB
re 1 µPa (rms)
4642
215
Size of Fish
All Fish
All Fish
1
Behavioral criteria was not set forth by the Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group, so as a conservative measure, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service generally use 150 dB root mean square as
the threshold for behavioral effects to Endangered Species Act-listed fish species (salmon and bull trout) for most biological
opinions evaluating pile driving, however there are currently no research or data to support this threshold.
Notes: SEL= sound exposure level, rms= root mean square
Source: Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group, 2008
A vibratory hammer would be used to remove all piles during elevated causeway system training. When using the vibratory driver method, the distances at which the underwater noise thresholds occur (150 dB rms) would be reduced to 710 ft. (216.4 m) for behavioral disruption. There are currently no criteria or expected occurrences of injury to fish from vibratory pile driving (Table 4‐10). Fish near the pile driving location may display a startle response during initial stages of pile driving, and would likely avoid the immediate area during pile driving activities. However, field investigations in Puget Sound in the state of Washington on salmonid behavior, when occurring near pile driving projects (Feist 1991; Feist et al. 1992), found little evidence that nearshore migrating salmonids move further offshore to avoid the general project area. In fact, some studies indicate that construction site behavioral responses, including site avoidance, may be as strongly tied to visual stimuli as well as underwater sound (Feist 1991; Feist et al. 1992; Ruggerone et al. 2008). Any fish which are behaviorally disturbed may change their normal behavior patterns (i.e., swimming speed or direction, foraging habits, etc.) or be temporarily displaced from the area of construction. 4‐25 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment The number of fish affected by pile driving would depend on the population density in the vicinity of the location of the activity, as well as factors discussed above such as pile driving method used and fish size. The number of fish potentially killed would not, however, represent significant mortality in terms of the total population of such fish in the Study Area. Furthermore, the probability of this occurring is low based on the patchy distribution of dense schooling fish. Fish density in 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 by pile driving cannot be accurately quantified. To summarize, a limited number of fish and invertebrates would be killed in the immediate proximity of the pile driving locations. Additional fish and invertebrates would be injured and could subsequently die or suffer greater rates of predation. Beyond the range of injurious effects, there could be short‐term effects such as masking, stress, behavioral changes, and hearing threshold shifts. However, given the relatively small area that would be affected, and the abundance and distribution of the species concerned, no population‐level effects would be expected. When training and testing activities are completed, any species disrupted by the exercise should repopulate the area over time. The regional abundance and diversity are unlikely to measurably decrease. Given the relatively small effects range and number of events for pile driving, the impacts should be correspondingly minimal. The impact of pile driving on water column EFH is therefore considered temporary and minimal. The impact on substrate EFH should be minimal and temporary based on the cross‐sectional area of pilings involved in the few events per year (See Section 4.1.3.2). Invertebrates associated with the displaced soft bottom substrate would be similarly impacted. The only HAPC intersecting the proposed pile driving location are eelgrass beds located in bay‐side SSTC; however, use of the Bravo training lane ensures no impacts to eelgrass HAPC. 4.1.1.2.3
Swimmer Defense Airguns
Swimmer defense airguns would be used for pierside integrated swimmer defense testing at pierside locations in San Diego Bay, California. The airgun would be fired a limited number of times (up to 100) during each activity at an irregular interval as required for the testing objectives. These areas adjacent to Navy pierside locations are industrialized, and the waterways carry a high volume of vessel traffic in addition to Navy vessels using the pier. These areas tend to have high ambient noise levels and limited numbers of sensitive marine animals due to the high levels of human activity. Underwater impulses would be generated using a small (60 cubic inches [in.3]) airgun, which is essentially a stainless steel tube charged with high‐pressure air via a compressor. An impulsive sound is generated when the air is almost instantaneously released into the surrounding water, an effect similar to popping a balloon in air. Generated impulses would have short durations, typically a few hundred milliseconds. The root‐mean‐squared sound pressure level and sound exposure level at a distance 1 m from the airgun would be approximately 200 to 210 dB re 1 µPa and 185 to 195 dB re 1 µPa2‐s. 4‐26 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Swimmer defense airguns lack the strong shock wave and rapid pressure increase that would be expected from explosive detonations and, to a lesser degree, impact pile driving. Therefore, small air gun fire associated with swimmer defense testing is therefore not expected to cause direct trauma to marine fish and affect water column EFH. Invertebrates lacking a swim bladder are even less likely to experience direct trauma from air guns. Abiotic substrate and associated seagrass or sedentary invertebrate beds should be unaffected for similar reasons. 4.1.1.2.4
Weapons Firing, Launch, and Impact Noise
Noise associated with weapons firing and non‐explosive impact could happen at any location within the Study Area but generally would occur at locations greater than 12 nm from shore. Testing activities involving weapons firing noise would be those events involved with testing weapons and launch systems. These activities would also take place throughout the Study Area. The firing of a weapon may have several components of associated noise. Firing of guns could have acoustic effects from sound generated by firing the gun (muzzle blast), vibration from the blast propagating through a ship’s hull, and sonic booms generated by the projectile flying through the air (Table 4‐11). Missiles and targets would produce noise during launch. In addition, impact of non‐
explosive practice munitions can introduce sound into the water. Table 4‐11: Representative Weapons Noise Characteristics Noise Source
Sound Level
In-Water
Naval Gunfire Muzzle Noise (5 in./54-caliber)
Approximately 200 dB re 1 µPa directly under
gun muzzle at five ft. below water surface
Airborne
Naval Gunfire Muzzle Noise (5 in./54-caliber)
178 dB re 20 µPa directly below the gun muzzle
above the water surface
Hellfire Missile Launch from Aircraft
149 dB re 20 µPa at 4.5 m
7.62-mm M-60 Machine Gun
90 dBA re 20 µPa at 50 ft.
0.50-caliber Machine Gun
98 dBA re 20 µPa at 50 ft.
Notes: dB = decibel, dBA = decibel, A-weighted, ft. = foot, µPa = micropascal, re = referenced to, mm =
millimeters
4.1.1.2.5
Naval Gunfire Noise
Firing a ship deck gun produces a muzzle blast in air that propagates away from the muzzle in all directions, including toward the water surface. Most sound enters the water in a narrow cone beneath the sound source (within 13 degrees of vertical). In‐water sound levels were measured during the muzzle blast of a 5 in. (12.7 cm) deck‐mounted gun, the largest caliber gun currently used in proposed Navy activities. The highest sound level in the water (on average 200 dB re 1 µPa measured 5 ft. below the surface) was obtained when the gun was fired at the lowest angle, placing the blast closest to the water surface (U.S. Department of the Navy2000; Yagla and Stiegler 2003). The average impulse at that location was 19.6 Pa‐s. The corresponding average peak in‐air pressure was 178 dB re 20 µPa, measured at the water surface below the firing point. Gunfire also sends energy through the ship structure, into the water, and away from the ship. This effect was investigated in conjunction with the measurement of 5 in. (12.7 cm) gun blasts described above. 4‐27 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment The energy transmitted through the ship to the water for a typical round was about 6 percent of that from the air blast impinging on the water. Therefore, sound transmitted from the gun through the hull into the water is a minimal component of overall weapons firing noise. The projectile shock wave in air by a shell in flight at supersonic speeds propagates in a cone (generally about 65 degrees) behind the projectile in the direction of fire (Pater 1981). Measurements of a 5 in. (12.7 cm) projectile shock wave ranged from 140 to 147 dB re 20 µPa taken at the surface at 0.59 nm distance from the firing location and 10° off the line of fire for safety (approximately 623 ft. [190 m] from the shell’s trajectory). Sound level intensity decreases with increased distance from the firing location and increased angle from the line of fire (Pater 1981). Like sound from the gun firing blast, sound waves from a projectile in flight would enter the water primarily in a narrow cone beneath the sound source. The region of underwater sound influence from a single traveling shell would be relatively narrow, the duration of sound influence would be brief at any point, and sound level would diminish as the shell gains altitude and loses speed. Multiple, rapid gun firings would occur from a single firing point toward a target area. Vessels participating in gunfire activities would maintain enough forward motion to maintain steerage, normally at speeds of a few knots. Acoustic impacts from weapons firing would often be concentrated in space and duration. Launch Noise
Missiles can be rocket or jet propelled. Sound due to missile and target launches is typically at a maximum at initiation of the booster rocket. It rapidly fades as the missile or target reaches optimal thrust conditions and the missile or target reaches a downrange distance where the booster burns out and the sustainer engine continues. Launch noise level for the Hellfire missile, which is launched from aircraft, is about 149 dB re 20 µPa at 14.8 ft. (4.5 m) (U.S. Department of the Army 1999). Non-Explosive Impact Noise
Mines, non‐explosive bombs, and intact missiles and targets could impact the water with great force and produce a large impulse and loud noise. Sounds of this type are produced by the kinetic energy transfer of the object with the target surface, and are highly localized to the area of disturbance. McLennan (1997) calculated the sound from large targets (over 4,400 lb. [2,000 kg]) hitting the water at speeds of over 3,280 ft./s (1,000 m/s) to have source levels in water of approximately 291 dB re 1 μPa re 1 m, although with very short pulse durations. However, the author does caution that the model may be an oversimplification for several stated reasons, and that measurements of actual levels may yield values 10 to 20 dB less than theoretical predictions. Sound associated with the impact event is typically of low frequency (less than 250 Hz) and of short duration. The impact of weapons firing, launch, and impact noise on water column EFH should be temporary and minimal, for the same reasons small air gun fire associated with swimmer defense testing are not expected to cause direct trauma to marine fish and affect water column EFH. Invertebrates lacking a swim bladder are even less likely to experience direct trauma from air guns. Abiotic substrate and associated submerged aquatic vegetation or sedentary invertebrate beds should be unaffected for similar reasons. 4.1.2
ENERGY STRESSORS
This section analyzes the potential impacts of energy stressors that can occur during training and testing activities within the Study Area, and for HSTT only includes potential impacts from electromagnetic devices. 4‐28 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 4.1.2.1
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Electromagnetic Devices
The training activities that involve the use of magnetic influence mine neutralization systems include: •
•
Mine Countermeasure – Towed Mine Neutralization Maritime Homeland Defense/Security Mine Countermeasures The testing activities that involve the use of magnetic influence mine neutralization systems include: •
•
Airborne Towed Minesweeping Test Mine Countermeasure/Neutralization Testing The number and location of Electromagnetic Energy events are provided in Table 4‐12. Table 4‐12: Number and Location of Electromagnetic Energy Events Activity Area
HRC
Training
Testing
1
0
SOCAL
241
31
SSTC
100
0
Total
342
31
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California
Range Complex, SSTC = Silver Strand Training Complex
The majority of devices involved in the activities described above include towed or unmanned mine warfare systems that simply mimic the electromagnetic signature of a vessel passing through the water. None of the devices include any type of electromagnetic “pulse.” An example of a representative device is the Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep that would be used by a MH‐60S helicopter at sea. The Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep is towed from a forward flying helicopter and works by emitting an electromagnetic field and mechanically generated underwater sound to simulate the presence of a ship. The sound and electromagnetic signature cause nearby mines to detonate. Generally, voltage used to power these systems is around 30 volts relative to seawater. This amount of voltage is comparable to two automobile batteries. Since saltwater is an excellent conductor, only very moderate voltages of 35 volts (capped at 55 volts) are required to generate the current. These small levels represent no danger of electrocution in the marine environment, because the difference in electric charge is very low in saltwater. The static magnetic field generated by the electromagnetic devices is of relatively minute strength. Typically, the maximum magnetic field generated would be approximately 23 gauss (G). This level of electromagnetic density is very low compared to magnetic fields generated by other everyday items. The magnetic field generated is between the levels of a refrigerator magnet (150 to 200 G) and a standard household can opener (up to 4 G at 4 in. [10.2 cm]). The strength of the electromagnetic field decreases quickly away from the cable. The magnetic field generated at a distance of 13.12 ft. (4 m) from the source is comparable to the earth’s magnetic field, which is approximately 0.5 G. The strength of the field at just under 26 ft. (8 m) is only 40 percent of the earth’s field, and only 10 percent at 79 ft. (24 m). At a radius of 656 ft. (200 m) the magnetic field would be approximately 0.002 G (U.S. Department of the Navy 2005b). 4‐29 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment The kinetic energy weapon (commonly referred to as the rail gun) is under development and will likely be tested and eventually used in training events aboard surface vessels, firing non‐explosive projectiles at land or sea‐based targets. The system uses stored electrical energy to accelerate the projectiles, which are fired at supersonic speeds over great distances. The system charges for two minutes, and fires in less than a second, therefore, any electromagnetic energy released would be done so over a very short period. Also, the system would likely be shielded so as not to affect shipboard controls and systems. The amount of electromagnetic energy released from this system would likely be low and contained on the surface vessel. Potential Impacts to the Water Column
An electromagnetic charge could affect the pelagic water column as a habitat for fish and invertebrates. A comprehensive review of information regarding the sensitivity of marine organisms to electric and magnetic impulses, including fishes comprising the subclass elasmobranchii (sharks, skates, and rays; hereafter referred to as elasmobranchs), as well as other bony fishes, is presented in Normandeau (2011a). The synthesis of available data and information contained in this report suggests that while many fish species (particularly elasmobranchs) are sensitive to electromagnetic fields, further investigation is necessary to understand the physiological response and magnitude of the potential effects. Most examinations of electromagnetic fields on marine fishes have focused on buried undersea cables associated with offshore wind farms in European waters (Boehlert and Gill 2010; Gill 2005; Ohman et al. 2007). Many fish groups including elasmobranchs, salmon, and others, have an acute sensitivity to electrical fields, known as electroreception (Bullock et al. 1983; Helfman et al. 2009). Elasmobranchs are more sensitive than the others. In elasmobranchs, behavioral and physiological response to electromagnetic stimulus varies by species and age, and appears to be related to foraging behavior (Rigg et al. 2009). Many elasmobranchs respond physiologically to electric fields of 10 nanovolts (nV) per cm and behaviorally at 5 nV per cm (Collin and Whitehead 2004). Electroreceptive marine fishes identified above with ampullary (pouch) organs can detect considerably higher frequencies of 50 Hz to more than 2 kHz (Helfman et al. 2009). The distribution of electroreceptors on the head of these fishes, especially around the mouth (e.g., along the rostrum of sawfishes), suggests that these sensory organs may be used in foraging. Additionally, some researchers hypothesize that the electroreceptors aid in social communication (Collin and Whitehead 2004). While elasmobranchs and other fishes can sense the level of the earth’s electromagnetic field, the potential effects on fish resulting from changes in the strength or orientation of the background field are not well understood. Electroreceptors are thought to aid in navigation, orientation, and migration of sharks and rays (Kalmijn 2000). The exact mechanism is unknown and no magnetic sensory organ has been discovered, but magnetite (a magnetic mineral) is incorporated into the tissues of these fishes (Helfman et al. 2009). Some species of salmon and tuna been shown to respond to magnetic fields and may also contain magnetite in their tissues (Helfman et al. 2009). When the electromagnetic field is enhanced or altered, sensitive fishes may experience an interruption or disturbance in normal sensory perception. Research on the electrosensitivity of sharks indicates that some species respond to electrical impulses with an apparent avoidance reaction (Helfman et al. 2009; Kalmijn 2000). This avoidance response has been exploited as a shark deterrent, to repel sharks from areas of overlap with human activity (Marcotte and Lowe 2008). Both laboratory and field studies confirm that elasmobranchs (and some teleost [bony] fishes) are sensitive to electromagnetic fields, but the long‐term impacts are not well‐known. Electromagnetic 4‐30 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment sensitivity in some marine fishes (e.g., salmonids) is already well‐ developed at early life stages (Ohman et al. 2007), with sensitivities reported as low as 0.6 millivolt per cm in Atlantic salmon (Formicki et al. 2004); however, most of the limited research that has occurred focuses on adults. Some species appear to be attracted to undersea cables, while others show avoidance (Ohman et al. 2007). Under controlled laboratory conditions, the scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) and sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) exhibited altered swimming and feeding behaviors in response to very weak electric fields (less than 1 nV per cm) (Kajiura and Holland 2002). A field trial in the Florida Keys demonstrated that southern stingray (Dasyatis americana) and nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) detected and avoided a fixed magnetic field producing a flux of 950 gauss (O'Connell et al. 2010). The maximum electromagnetic fields typically generated during Navy training and testing activities is approximately 23 gauss. Little information exists regarding invertebrate susceptibility to electromagnetic fields. Most corals are thought to use water temperature, day length, and tidal fluctuations as cues for spawning. Magnetic fields are not known to control coral spawning release or larval settlement. Some arthropods (e.g., spiny lobster and American lobster) can sense magnetic fields, and this is thought to assist the animal with navigation and orientation (Lohmann et al. 1995; Normandeau et al. 2011b). These animals travel relatively long distances during their lives, and it is possible that magnetic field sensation exists for other invertebrates that travel long distances. Marine invertebrates, including several commercially important species and federally managed species, have the potential to use magnetic cues (Normandeau et al. 2011b). Susceptibility experiments have focused on arthropods, but several mollusks and echinoderms are also susceptible. However, because susceptibility is variable within taxonomic groups it is not possible to make generalized predictions for groups of marine invertebrates. Sensitivity thresholds vary by species ranging from 0.3 to 30 millitesla, and responses included non‐lethal physiological and behavioral changes (Normandeau et al. 2011b). The primary use of magnetic cues seems to be navigation and orientation. Human‐introduced electromagnetic fields have the potential to disrupt these cues and interfere with navigation, orientation, and migration. Because electromagnetic fields weaken exponentially with distance from the source, large and sustained magnetic fields present greater exposure risks than small and transient fields, even if the small field is many times stronger than the earth’s magnetic field (Normandeau et al. 2011b). Transient or moving electromagnetic fields may cause temporary disturbance to susceptible organisms’ navigation and orientation. The temporary behavioral impact of electromagnetic stressors on susceptible fish and invertebrates is expected to result in a less than minimal population‐level response and corresponding impact on water column EFH. Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrates and Biogenic Habitats
Substrate is unaffected by electromagnetic devices due to lack of a physical disturbance component. Beds of submerged rooted vegetation are unaffected because they lack a central nervous system susceptible to electromagnetic stressors. Sedentary invertebrate beds and reefs should not be impacted because their navigation and orientation is not important, though mobile larvae may be affected. Therefore, for substrate and biogenic habitat EFH, there is no adverse impact expected from electromagnetic stressors. Likewise, there are no adverse impacts expected on these habitats within HAPCs. 4‐31 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing 4.1.3
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE AND STRIKE STRESSORS
This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of physical disturbance and strike stressors resulting from the Navy conducting its training and testing activities within the Study Area. The water column, benthic substrates (e.g., soft and hard bottom), and biogenic habitats (e.g., coral, live bottom) designated as EFH are potentially subject to physical disturbance by vessels, in‐water devices, military expended materials, and seafloor devices associated with Navy training and testing. This section describes the potential characteristics of physical disturbance and strike stressors from naval training and testing activities. It also describes the relative magnitude and location of these activities to provide the basis for analysis of potential physical disturbance to designated EFH. 4.1.3.1
Vessels
Vessels are a part of nearly all training and testing exercises that occur in the HSTT Study Area. As such, Navy vessels are frequently transiting throughout the Study Area and in and out of ports. Table 4‐13 provides a list of vessel types, as well as examples of each type, their typical length and speed. The potential impacts of these movements to designated EFH and HAPCs are outlined below. Table 4‐13: Representative Vessel Types, Lengths, and speeds Type
Example(s)
Length
Typical
Operating
Speed
Max Speed
> 300 m
10 to 15 knots
30+ knots
Aircraft Carrier
Aircraft Carrier (CVN)
Surface Combatant
Cruisers (CG), Destroyers (DDG), Frigates
(FFG), Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
100 to 200 m
10 to 15 knots
30+ knots
Amphibious Warfare
Ship
Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA, LHD),
Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD), Dock
Landing Ship (LSD)
100 to 300 m
10 to 15 knots
20+ knots
Support Craft/Other
Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV);
Combat Rubber Raiding Craft (CRRC);
Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM); Landing
Craft, Utility (LCU); Submarine Tenders
(AS); Yard Patrol Craft (YP)
5 to 45 m
Variable
20 knots
Support Craft/Other
– Specialized High
Speed
High Speed Ferry/Catamaran; Patrol
Coastal Ships (PC); Rigid Hull Inflatable
Boat (RHIB)
20 to 40 m
Variable
50+ knots
Submarines
Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN),
Attack Submarines (SSN), Guided Missile
Submarines (SSGN)
100 to 200 m
8 to 13 knots
20+ knots
Amphibious vessels would land in HRC (Pacific Missile Range Facility, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Marine Corps Training Area Bellows, and Kawaihae Pier), SOCAL Range Complex (Eel Cove, Wilson Cove, West Cove, Horse Beach Cove, Northwest Harbor, and Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area), and SSTC (Boat and Beach Lanes and San Diego Bay training areas). Surface ships, propelled either by water jet pump or by propeller, and small craft would be used in the Study Area. Boats in the Study Area may approach the shore or beach below the mean high tide line to transport personnel or equipment to and from shore. This beaching activity could affect soft bottom marine habitats because the boat contacts and disturbs the sediment where it lands. Because of their greater size and power, large power‐driven vessels would have more potential impact on bottom substrate in the Study Area. These vessels would 4‐32 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment include MK V Special Operations Craft, Mechanized and Utility Landing Craft, Air Cushioned Landing Craft, and other vessels transporting large numbers of people or equipment. Potential Impacts to the Water Column
As vessels transit through an area, the water column would be temporarily disturbed. However, as the water would not be altered in any measurable or lasting manner, there would be no adverse impact to the water column itself. Amphibious vessels would approach the shore and could beach, which would disturb sediments and increase turbidity. The impact of large, power‐driven vessels on the substrate in the surf zone would be minor because of the dispersed nature of the amphibious landings and the dynamic nature of sediments in areas of high‐energy surf. Amphibious landings of large vessels in San Diego Bay would be restricted to the designated training lane within the Bravo training area. Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrate
Vessel movements could affect soft bottom habitats during amphibious landings. Ocean approaches would be expected to have minimal effects on soft bottom marine habitats because of the nature of high‐energy surf and shifting sands. The movement of sediment by wave energy would fill in disturbed soft‐bottom habitat similar to sediment recovery from a severe storm. Amphibious landings of large vessels in San Diego Bay would be restricted to the designated training lane within the Bravo training area. Therefore, vessel movements in the Study Area would be expected to have a minimal effect to soft bottom marine habitats. Physical disturbances and strikes of hard bottom substrates by vessels would cause damage to the vessel and are avoided when possible. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to hard bottom substrates or artificial structures as a result of vessel movements. Potential Impacts to Biogenic Habitats
As with hard bottom substrates, physical disturbances and strikes of benthic biogenic habitats by vessels would cause damage to the vessel and are avoided when possible. The Lookouts on Navy vessels are trained to identify to avoid physical impacts where possible (See Section 5.0 – Mitigation Measures). Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to benthic biogenic habitats as a result of vessel movements. For both training and testing exercises, vessel movements would have minimal impacts on the water column, soft or hard bottom substrates, or benthic biogenic habitats designated as EFH or HAPC.
4.1.3.2
Pile Driving
Pile driving would occur during the construction and removal phases of the elevated causeway training activities at the SSTC. Elevated causeway activities would involve installing and removing a temporary pier or causeway over a two‐week period using floating barges and a pile driver to drive 24 in. (61 cm) diameter metal pilings into bottom substrates. Most of the causeway would remain floating offshore, with pilings driven into the sediment. An elevated causeway would most likely consist of 58 pier piles (29 per side), 29 pier head piles, and 16 pier head fender piles, for a total of 103 piles. The driving of piles to support the causeway disturbs sediment, as well as, causes an increase in turbidity at the site of the pile driving. Causeway activities occur primarily on SSTC oceanside boat training areas 1 to 10, but also periodically in the bayside training area Bravo. Both bayside and oceanside locations are sandy in 4‐33 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment the intertidal area affected, and therefore contain low densities of invertebrates that could be disturbed by the onshore portion of the activity. The potential number of animals affected is low. Except for the locally disturbed substrate area, the site is expected to recolonize quickly from adjacent areas due to the prevalence of relatively short‐lived, opportunistic, and mobile species in these sandy substrates. Since bayside causeway training is restricted to the designated training lane within Bravo Beach, the disturbance of eelgrass habitat at this location has been fully offset by mitigation through previous consultations. Potential Impacts to the Water Column
While driving and removing piles, the water column would be temporarily disturbed. However, as the water would not be altered in any lasting manner, there would be no adverse impact to the water column itself. Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrate
Pile driving occurs on sandy beaches or mud bottoms in the Study Area, and physical disturbances of benthic substrates by pile driving would occur in the immediate area of the pile in addition to a small area surrounding the pile. The estimated affected area for each training activity would be approximately 320 ft.2 (30 m2), with approximately 1,300 ft.2 (121 m2) affected by all four training activities. Pile driving would be expected to have minimal effects on soft bottom marine habitats because of the nature of high‐energy surf and shifting sands. The movement of sediment by wave energy would fill in disturbed soft‐bottom habitat similar to sediment recovery from a severe storm. Training activities in the oceanside Boat Lanes would affect less than 0.001 percent of the training area. Pile driving in San Diego Bay would be restricted to the designated training lane within the Bravo training area. Therefore, pile driving in the Study Area would be expected to have a minimal effect to soft bottom marine habitats. Potential Impacts to Biogenic Habitats
As with benthic substrates, pile driving occurs on sandy beaches or mud bottoms in the Study Area and therefore biogenic habitats are avoided or in the case of bayside training, within the designated training area mitigated through previous consultations. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to benthic biogenic habitats as a result of the use of pile driving. Given the relatively small effects range and number of events for pile driving, the impacts should be correspondingly minimal. The impact of pile driving on water column EFH is therefore considered temporary and minimal. The impact on substrate EFH should be minimal and temporary based on the cross‐sectional area of pilings involved in the few events per year. Invertebrates associated with the displaced soft bottom substrate would be similarly impacted. The only HAPC intersecting the proposed pile driving location are eelgrass beds located in bayside SSTC; however, use of the Bravo training lane ensures no impacts to eelgrass HAPC. 4.1.3.3
In-Water Devices
In‐water devices include towed devices and unmanned vehicles such as remotely operated vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles, and unmanned undersea vehicles. These devices are self‐propelled and unmanned or towed through the water from a variety of platforms including helicopters, unmanned underwater vehicles, or surface ships. In‐water devices are generally smaller than most Navy vessels, 4‐34 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ranging from several inches to about 8 fm (15 m). See Table 4‐14 for a range of in‐water devises used. These devices can operate anywhere from the water surface to the benthic zone. Table 4‐15 provides estimates of relative in‐water device use and location under the Proposed Action. While these estimates provide the average distribution of in‐water devices, actual locations and hours of Navy in‐water device usage are dependent upon military training and testing requirements, deployment schedules, annual budgets and other unpredictable factors. Table 4‐14: Representative Types, Sizes, and Speeds of In‐Water Devices Type
Towed
Device
Unmanned
Surface
Vehicle
Unmanned
Undersea
Vehicle
Example(s)
Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS); Airborne Mine
Neutralization System (AMNS); AQS Systems; Improved Surface Tow
Target (ISTT); Towed SONAR System; MK-103, MK-104 and MK-105
Minesweeping Systems; OASIS, Orion, Shallow Water Intermediate
Search System, Towed Pinger Locator 30
MK-33 SEPTAR Drone Boat, QST-35A Seaborne Powered Target, Ship
Deployable Seaborne Target (SDST), Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull
(SWATH), Unmanned Influence Sweep System (UISS)
Acoustic Mine Targeting System, AMNS, AN-ASQ Systems, Archerfish
Common Neutralizer, Crawlers, CURV 21, Deep Drone 8000, Deep
Submergence Rescue Vehicle, Gliders, EMATTs (Expendable Mobile
ASW Training Targets), Light and Heavy Weight Torpedoes, Magnum
Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV), Manned Portables, MINIROVs (, MK
30 ASW Targets, RMMV (Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle), Remote
Minehunting System (RMS), Unmanned Influence Sweep
Length
Typical
Operating
Speed
< 10 m
10 to 40 knots
< 15 m
Variable, up
to 50+ knots
< 15 m
1 to 15 knots
Table 4‐15: Number and Location of Events Including In‐Water Devices Activity Area
Training
Testing
HRC
1,625
266
SOCAL
3,061
581
SSTC
308
65
Total
5,055
912
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California,
SSTC = Silver Strand Training Complex
Potential Impacts to the Water Column
As in‐water devices pass through an area, the water column would be temporarily disturbed. However, as the water would not be altered in any measurable or lasting manner, there would be no adverse impact to the water column itself. Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrate
Physical disturbances and strikes of benthic substrates by in‐water devices would cause damage to the in‐water devices and are avoided when possible. The Lookouts on Navy vessels are trained to identify to avoid physical impacts where possible (See Section 5.0, Mitigation Measures). Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to benthic substrates as a result of the use of in‐water devices. 4‐35 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Potential Impacts to Biogenic Habitats
As with benthic substrates, physical disturbances and strikes of benthic biogenic habitats by in‐water devices would cause damage to the device and are avoided when possible. The Lookouts on Navy vessels are trained to identify to avoid physical impacts where possible (See Section 5.0, Mitigation Measures). Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to benthic biogenic habitats as a result of the use of in‐water devices. For both training and testing exercises, the use of in‐water devices would have no impact on the water column, soft or hard bottom substrates, or benthic biogenic habitats designated as EFH or HAPC. 4.1.3.4
Military Expended Materials
Many different types of military expended materials remain at sea following Navy training and testing activities that occur throughout the Study Area, as described in Section 2.0 (Proposed Action). Military expended materials include: (1) non‐explosive practice munitions; (2) fragments from high explosive munitions; and (3) expended materials other than ordnance, such as sonobuoys, ship hulls, expendable targets and aircraft stores (fuel tanks, carriages, dispensers, racks, carriages or similar types of support systems on aircraft which could be expended or recovered). The potential for physical disturbance to habitats designated as EFH by military expended materials from Navy training and testing activities exists throughout the Study Area, although the types of military expended materials vary by activity and region with some locations having greater concentration of activity than others. Section 2.3.6 (Military Expended Materials) provides a description of military expended materials that are used in Navy training and testing activities. Potential Impacts to the Water Column
As the military expended materials would either drift in the water column or pass quickly through the water column as they sink to the seafloor without altering the water in any measurable or lasting manner, there would be no adverse impact to the water column itself. Impacts associated with the degradation of military expended materials (MEM) and their effect on water quality are discussed in contaminant stressors. Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrate
Military expended materials have the potential to physically disturb marine substrates to the extent that they impair the substrate’s ability to function as a habitat. These disturbances can result from several sources including the physical impact of the expended material contacting the substrate, the covering of the substrate by the expended material, or the alteration of the substrate from one type to another (e.g., converting soft bottom substrate into hard bottom resulting from solid expended materials overlying soft substrates). The likelihood of military expended materials adversely impacting substrates and biogenic habitats as they come into contact with the seafloor depends on several factors including the size, type, mass, and speed of the material; water depth; the amount of material expended; the frequency of training or testing; and the type of substrate or biogenic community. Most of the kinetic energy of the expended material, however, is dissipated within the first few yards of the object entering the water causing it to slow considerably by the time it reaches the seafloor. Because the damage caused by a strike is proportional to the force of the strike, slower speeds may result in lesser impacts. 4‐36 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Due to the depth of water in which most training and testing events take place, a direct strike on hard bottom is unlikely to occur with sufficient force to damage the substrate. Any potential damage would be to a small portion of the structural habitat. The value of many of these substrates as habitat, however, is not entirely dependent on the precise shape of the structure. An alteration in shape or structure caused by military expended materials would not necessarily reduce the habitat value of hard bottom. In softer substrates (e.g., sand, mud, silt, clay, and composites), the impact of the expended material coming into contact with the seafloor, if large enough and striking with sufficient momentum, may result in a depression and a localized redistribution of sediments as they are temporarily resuspended into the water column. During Navy training and testing, countermeasures such as flares and chaff are introduced into the marine environment. These types of military expended materials are not expected to impact substrates as strike stressors given their smaller size and low velocity when deployed compared to projectiles, bombs, and missiles. Another potential physical disturbance military expended materials could have on substrates would be to cover them or to alter the type of substrate and, therefore, its function as habitat. The majority of military expended materials that settle on hard bottoms, while covering the substrate, would still serve the same habitat function as the substrate it is covering by providing a hard surface on which organisms can settle and attach (Figure 4‐3 and Figure 4‐4). Full colonization or fouling of the expended material would occur over an approximately 18‐month timeframe, depending on the area (Carter and Prekel 2008). An exception would be expended materials like the parachutes utilized to deploy sonobuoys, lightweight torpedoes, expendable mobile anti‐submarine warfare training targets, and other devices from aircraft, that would not provide a hard surface for colonization or fouling. In these cases, the hard bottom covered by the expended material would not be physically damaged, but would have its ability to function as a habitat for colonizing or encrusting organisms impaired. Most military expended materials that settle on soft bottom habitats, while not damaging the actual substrate, would inhibit the substrate’s ability to function as a habitat by covering it with a hard surface. This would effectively alter the substrate from a soft surface to a hard structure and, therefore, would alter the ability of the substrate from one capable of supporting a soft bottom community to one that would be more appropriate as habitat for organisms more commonly found associated with hard bottom environments (Figure 4‐5). Expended materials that settle in the shallower, more dynamic environments of the continental shelf would likely be eventually covered over by sediments due to currents and other coastal processes or encrusted by organisms. In the deeper waters of the continental slope and beyond where currents do not play as large of a role, expended materials may remain exposed on the surface of the substrate with minimal change for extended periods (Figure 4‐5). Softer expended materials, such as parachutes, would also not damage the sediments but would likely impair its ability to function as a habitat to some degree. Impacts associated with the degradation of MEM and their effect on sediment quality are discussed in contaminant stressors. Potential Impacts to Biogenic Habitats
As with substrates, military expended materials have the potential to adversely impact the benthic invertebrates and vegetation that compose the biogenic habitats (e.g., coral, sponges, macroalgae, hydroids, amphipod tubes, bryozoans) coinciding with areas where training and testing events occur. Due to their size and minimal weight, smaller items such as small‐caliber projectiles may result in little to no damage to biogenic habitats while larger, heavier items such as large‐caliber projectiles, bombs, or missiles may break or crush the sessile invertebrates (e.g., coral, sponges, etc.) which may occur where military materials would be expended. Damage to these habitats would be primarily confined to the area of impact. As observed in recent benthic surveys in the Jacksonville OPAREA, expended munitions 4‐37 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment and other hard objects that land in areas of live/hard bottom serve as colonizing structures in much the same way as the surrounding substrates (Figure 4‐3 and Figure 4‐4), so recovery of the area would be expected over time. Other types of military expended materials such as parachutes, associated with certain air‐dropped munitions and devices, may not adversely impact a habitat through its initial contact, but may potentially cover and/or smother the habitat over time instead. Unlike munitions and many other solid expended materials, it is unlikely that benthic invertebrates would colonize materials such as parachutes, potentially resulting in a loss of biogenic habitat in areas where parachutes settle for as long as they remain in place and intact. Estuarine and nearshore biogenic habitats such as kelp beds, seagrass, mangroves, and wetlands are unlikely to be impacted by military expended materials due to their close proximity to shore, well away from most areas of training and testing where military materials would be expended. Figure 4‐3: A MK‐58 Smoke Float Observed in an Area Dominated by Coral Rubble on the Continental Slope Note: Observed at approximately 191 fm (350 m) in depth and 60 nm east of Jacksonville, Florida. Of note is the use of the smoke float as a colonizing substrate for a cluster of sea anemones (U.S. Department of the Navy 2010b). 4‐38 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Figure 4‐4: An Unidentified, non‐Military Structure Observed on the Ridge System Running Parallel to the Continental Shelf Break Note: Observed at approximately 44 fm (80 m) in depth and 55 nm east of Jacksonville, Florida. Of note is that encrusting organisms and benthic invertebrates readily colonize the artificial structure to a similar degree as the surrounding rock outcrop (U.S. Department of the Navy 2010). Figure 4‐5: (Left) A 76‐mm Cartridge Casing on Soft Bottom. (Right) A blackbelly rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) using the casing for shelter when disturbed Note: The casing was observed in a sandy area on the continental slope approximately 232 fm (425 m) in depth and 70 nm east of Jacksonville, Florida. The casing has not become covered by sediments due to the depth and the relatively calm, current‐free environment. When disturbed, the rosefish retreated inside the casing for protection. 4.1.3.4.1
Training Activities
Military expended materials used as part of training activities occurring in the each of the range complexes, as well as outside of these areas, have the potential to adversely affect benthic and biogenic 4‐39 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment habitats designated as EFH. In addition, designated HAPCs coinciding with areas of training activity may also be adversely affected. The portions of the water column designated as EFH would be minimally impacted by military expended materials from training events. High‐explosive military expended material would typically fragment into small pieces. Ordnance that fails to function as designed and inert munitions would result in larger pieces of military expended material settling to the seafloor. Once on the seafloor, military expended material would be buried by sediments, corroded from exposure to the marine environment, or colonized by benthic organisms. Because training activities involving military expended materials have the potential to impact substrates designated as EFH within the areas where training is occurring, each range complex was evaluated to determine what the level of impact could be under the Proposed Action. In an attempt to quantify the potential level of disturbance of military expended materials on bottom substrates within each of the range complexes, an analysis of two worst case scenarios were developed. As a conservative measure for the analyses, within each category of expended items (e.g., bombs, missiles, rockets, large‐caliber projectiles, etc.), the size of the largest item which would be expended was used to represent the sizes of all items in the category. For example, the footprint of missiles used during training exercises range from 1.6 to 37.4 ft.2 (0.15 to 3.5 m2, respectively). For the analyses, all missiles were assumed to be equivalent to the largest in size, or 37.4 ft.2 (3.5 m2). In addition, it was also assumed that the impact of the expended material on the seafloor is twice the size of its footprint. This assumption accounts for any displacement of sediments at the time of impact as well as any subsequent movement of the item on the seafloor due to currents or other forces. This should more accurately reflect the potential disturbance to soft bottom habitats, but should overestimate disturbance to hard bottom habitats since no displacement of the substrate would occur. In addition, items with casings (e.g., small, medium, and large‐caliber munitions; flares; sonobuoys; etc.) have their impact footprints doubled to account for both the item and its casing. To be conservative, items and their casings were assumed to be the same size. During sinking exercises, large amounts of military expended material and a vessel hulk would be expended. Sinking exercises in the Study Area, however, would occur over 50 nm from shore, where the substrate would be primarily clays and silts Impacts of military materials expended over deep‐water would be negligible because the Navy would typically avoid hard‐bottom sub‐surface features (e.g., seamounts). Vessel hulks used during sinking exercises would alter the bottom substrate, converting soft bottom habitat into an artificial, hard‐bottom structure. The amount of area affected by vessel hulks would be a fraction of the available training area, and the vessel hulk would be an anchoring point in the open ocean where the predominant habitat is soft bottom. Potential impacts to soft bottom habitats from military expended materials would range from temporary to permanent, depending upon the nature of the environment in which the expended material settled. In areas subject to dynamic coastal processes such as tidal influx or currents, the military expended materials may be covered by sediments over time. In such cases, the temporal impact of the military expended material on the environment would be temporary (recovery in days to weeks) to short term (recovery in less than three years). However, were the military expended materials to settle on soft bottom in areas rarely disturbed by currents or other forces, such as on many areas of the continental slope, the items may persist on the bottom indefinitely. In such cases, the items would cover the soft bottom with a hard structure (the military expended material itself), thus inhibiting the soft bottom’s ability to function as a habitat within the direct vicinity of the item. In such instances, the military expended material would function more as an artificial structure rather than as soft bottom 4‐40 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment habitat (Figure 4‐5). This would result in a long term (recovery in more than 3 years but less than 20 years were the item to decompose or break down over time), or permanent (recovery in more than 20 years) impact to the habitat. The spatial extent of the impact would be minimal, limited to the footprint of the individual military expended material. In cases where multiple military materials are expended in the same area, the same habitat may be impacted numerous times during a given training activity and the overall impact to the habitat would be cumulative of the footprints of all of the military expended materials to settle on the habitat. Potential impacts to hard bottom substrates would primarily be temporary to short term. The military expended materials that settled on hard bottom would initially impair the substrate’s ability to function as a habitat, but would ultimately serve the same function as the habitat they cover leading to only a temporary or short term impact (Figure 4‐3 and Figure 4‐4). The exception would be items made of soft material, such as parachutes, that would impair the substrate or structure’s ability to function as a habitat for as long as it was present. The spatial extent of the impact would be the same as noted for soft bottom substrates. A total of 3,795,865 military items would be expended annually in the Study Area during training activities, which would result in a total impact area of approximately 6,602,561 ft.2 (613,398 m2). The majority of the impact area would be ship hulks expended during sinking exercises. With an impact area of 632,000 ft.2 (58,740 m2) for each vessel and up to eight sinking exercises per year, ship hulks would account for about 80 percent (5,056,300 ft.2 [469,920 m2]) of the annual impact area for training activities under the Proposed Action. An estimated 685,408 military items would be expended annually during training activities within the HRC (Table 4‐16). Assuming that the impact area is twice the footprint of the expended material, a total area of approximately 4,436,480 ft.2 (412,163 m2) would be impacted. The total impact area of military expended materials from training activities would cover approximately 0.12 nm2, which would be a fraction of the total sea surface area of the HRC (approximately 120,000 nm2) or less than a 0.001 percent of the total area of substrate in the HRC. An estimated 3,110,461 military items would be expended each year during training activities within the SOCAL Range Complex (Table 4‐16), which could impact a total area of approximately 2,166,070 ft.2 (201,235 m2) of the seafloor, assuming the area of impact was twice the footprint of the expended material. The total impact area would cover approximately 0.06 nm2, which would be a fraction of the total sea surface area of the SOCAL Range Complex (approximately 120,000 nm2) or less than a 0.0001 percent of the total area of substrate in the SOCAL Range Complex. In addition, military items would be expended in the Transit Corridor between HRC and SOCAL. An estimated 91,365 items would be expended, with a total impact area of approximately 12,930 ft.2 (1,201 m2). This amount of material would be dispersed over thousands of square miles. 4‐41 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Military expended materials resulting from training activities would adversely affect substrates designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. Based on the results of a worst case scenario where all military expended materials settled in areas of soft bottom substrates (Table 4‐16), the impact would be minimal based on the small amount of available habitat impacted. The duration of the impact to the areas that were affected, however, would range from long term to permanent. Military expended materials resulting from training activities would adversely affect hard bottom substrates designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. Based on the results of a worst case scenario where all military expended materials settled in areas of hard bottom substrates (Table 4‐16), the impact would be minimal based on the small amount of available habitat impacted. The duration of the impact to the areas that were affected would range from temporary to short term. Biogenic habitats may also be potentially impacted by military expended materials. While the least common of the benthic habitat types and, therefore, the least likely to be impacted, benthic biogenic habitats have concentrated distributions throughout the range complexes, particularly occurring along the coastal portions of the complexes. The primary types of biogenic habitats that may potentially be impacted by military expended materials include coral and coral reefs, live bottom (e.g., areas with sponges, bryozoans, hydroids, amphipod tubes), and attached macroalgae. Impacts to benthic biogenic habitats would range from short term to permanent depending on the type of organisms impacted. Most benthic organisms and macroalgae would recover from an impact over a short time period (less than 3 years). Military expended material in the coastal portions of the Study Area would be limited to small‐caliber projectiles, flares, and target fragments. These materials would be small, and would typically be covered by sediment or colonized by benthic organisms. The small size of military expended materials would not change the habitat structure. Therefore, military expended material from training activities in the Study Area would have a minimal effect on biogenic habitats.
4‐42 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 4‐16: Annual Numbers and Impacts of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use Under the Proposed Action Southern California Range Complex1
Training Activities
Testing Activities
Impact
Number
Number Impact (m2)
(m2)
Hawaii Range Complex
Training Activities
Testing Activities
Impact
Impact
Number
Number
(m2)
(m2)
Size
(m2)
Impact
Footprint
2
(m )
Bombs (HE)
0.7544
1.5088
Bombs (NEPM)
0.7544
1.5088
399
602
0
0
1,120
1,690
0
0
Small caliber1
0.0028
0.0056
422,000
2,363
8,250
46
2,559,800
14,335
15,550
87
Medium caliber (HE)
0.0052
0.0104
6,640
69
1,750
18
13,920
145
18,250
190
Medium caliber (NEPM)
0.0052
0.0104
195,360
2,032
23,000
239
435,160
4,526
62,000
645
Military Expended
Material
74
112
0
0
166
250
0
0
Large caliber (HE)
0.0938
0.1876
1,894
355
3,680
690
4,244
796
4,460
837
Large caliber (NEPM)
0.0938
0.1876
1,464
275
3,640
683
5,596
1,050
2,060
386
Missiles (HE)
3.4715
6.9430
146
1,014
56
389
330
2,291
70
486
Missiles (NEPM)
2.8801
5.7602
64
369
70
403
30
173
148
853
Rockets (HE)
0.0742
0.1484
760
113
0
0
3,800
564
297
44
Rockets (NEPM)
0.0742
0.1484
0
0
0
0
0
0
781
116
Chaff (cartridges)
0.0001
0.0002
2,600
1
300
0.06
20,750
4
254
0.05
Flares
0.1133
0.2266
1,750
397
0
0
8,300
1,881
110
25
Airborne targets
4.3838
8.7676
26
228
52
456
45
395
24
21
Surface targets
0.5344
1.0688
450
481
43
46
1,150
1,229
197
211
Sub-surface targets
0.1134
0.2268
405
92
177
40
550
125
243
55
Mine shapes
2.396
4.792
384
1,840
0
0
216
1,035
0
0
Ship hulk (SINKEX)
29,370
58,740
6
352,440
0
0
2
117,480
0
0
Torpedoes (HE)
3.0861
6.1721
6
37
29
179
2
12
8
49
Neutralizers (HE)
0.1513
0.3026
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
13
Neutralizers (NEPM)
0.1513
0.3026
0
0
64
19
360
109
394
119
Sonobuoys (HE)
0.1134
0.2268
480
109
500
113
120
27
2,892
656
Sonobuoys
0.1134
0.2268
24,500
5,557
4,343
985
26,800
6,078
8,896
2,018
Parachutes
0.8400
1.6800
Total
26,000
43,680
4,542
7,631
28,000
47,040
9,234
15,513
685,408
412,163
50,496
11,938
3,110,461
201,235
125,912
22,513
1
Only military expended materials in SSTC are small arms blanks used during small boat attack training activities, which are included as SOCAL military expended materials.
2
Notes: m = square meter, HE = high explosive, NEPM = non-explosive practice munition, SINKEX = Sinking Exercise
4‐43 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Coral, which takes decades to grow and form, would take the longest to recover from any injury sustained as a result of military expended materials. However, were the coral to be fragmented by the expended material, rather than covered or crushed, the recovery period would be reduced as the fragments have the ability to continue to grow and develop. Impacts to coral would range from long term (recovery in more than 3 years but less than 20 years) to permanent (recovery in more than 20 years), depending on the severity of the damage and the type of coral impacted. Coral reefs occur within the HRC (Figures 3‐14 to 3‐17). Deep‐water corals also occur in the HRC; however, given the limited spatial extent of deep‐water coral within the HRC and the general location where activities occur, it is highly unlikely that military expended materials would land in the vicinity of deep‐water coral found within the HRC. Military expended materials resulting from training activities would adversely affect live bottom organisms (e.g., areas with sponges, bryozoans, hydroids, amphipod tubes) and macroalgae designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. Due to the sizes of the range complexes in which activities would occur and the limited distribution of biogenic habitats within the range complexes, the impact to these habitats from military expended materials would be minimal. For areas that would potentially be impacted, the duration of the impact would be short term. Military expended materials resulting from training activities would adversely affect coral and coral reefs designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. Due to the sizes of the range complexes in which activities would occur and the limited distribution of biogenic habitats within the range complexes, the impact to these habitats from military expended materials would be minimal. However, was an impact to occur, the duration of the impact would be long term to permanent. 4.1.3.4.2
Testing Activities
Military expended materials from testing activities occurring in each of the testing ranges, as well as outside of these areas, have the potential to adversely impact benthic and biogenic habitats designated as EFH. In addition, designated HAPCs coinciding with areas of testing activities may also be adversely affected. The portions of the water column designated as EFH would not be impacted by military expended materials from testing events. Using the same methodology as for training activities, testing activities were also analyzed to determine the potential impacts of military expended materials on benthic substrates under a worst case scenario of all military expended materials used during testing exercises within a given testing range settling to the bottom. Based on the results, military expended materials resulting from testing activities would impact less than 0.000005 percent of the available seafloor within each of the testing ranges annually, even under a worst case scenario (Table 4‐16). Those impacts that do occur would be the same as characterized in the discussion in the previous section (Section 4.1.3.3.1, Training Exercises). The potential impacts to biogenic habitats from military expended materials resulting from testing activities would be the same as described for the training exercises in Section 4.1.3.3.1 (Training Activities). 4‐44 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Military expended materials resulting from testing activities would adversely affect live bottom organisms (e.g., areas with sponges, bryozoans, hydroids, amphipod tubes) and macroalgae designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. Due to the sizes of the range complexes in which activities would occur and the limited distribution of biogenic habitats within the range complexes, the impact to these habitats from military expended materials would be minimal. For areas that would potentially be impacted, the duration of the impact would be short term. Military expended materials resulting from testing activities would adversely affect coral and coral reefs designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. Due to the sizes of the range complexes in which activities would occur and the limited distribution of biogenic habitats within the range complexes, the impact to these habitats from military expended materials would be minimal. However, was an impact to occur, the duration of the impact would be long term to permanent. 4.1.3.5
4.1.3.5.1
Seafloor Devices
Seafloor Devices
Seafloor devices represent any item used during training or testing activities that intentionally comes into contact with the seafloor, but are later recovered. These items include moored mine shapes, anchors, and robotic vehicles referred to as “crawlers.” Seafloor devices are either stationary or move very slowly along the bottom and do not pose a threat to highly mobile organisms. The use of seafloor devices in each of the training and testing ranges is outlined in Table 4‐17. Table 4‐17: Number and Location of Events Including Seafloor Devices Activity Area
Training
Testing
73
17
1,241
65
587
0
0
0
1,901
82
HRC
SOCAL
SSTC
Transit Corridor
Total
Notes: HRC = Hawaii Range Complex, SOCAL = Southern California, SSTC =
Silver Strand Training Complex
Mine shapes are typically deployed via surface vessels or fixed‐wing aircraft. Most moored mines deployed from surface vessels are typically secured with up to a 2,700 lb. (1,225 kg) concrete mooring block (approximately 30 in. [76.2 cm] to a side). Moored mines deployed from fixed‐wing aircraft enter the water and impact the bottom, becoming semi‐submerged. Upon impact, the mine casing separates and the semi‐buoyant mine floats through the water column until it reaches the end of the mooring line. Bottom mines are typically positioned manually and are allowed to free sink to the bottom to rest. Mine shapes are normally deployed over soft sediments and are recovered within 7 to 30 days following the completion of the training or testing events. Precision anchoring training exercises involve releasing of anchors in designated locations. The intent of these training exercises is to practice anchoring the vessel within 100 yd. of the planned anchorage location. These training activities typically occur within predetermined shallow water anchorage locations near ports with seafloors consisting of soft bottom substrate. 4‐45 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Crawlers are fully autonomous, battery‐powered amphibious vehicles used for functions such as reconnaissance missions in territorial waters. These devices are used to classify and map underwater mines in shallow water areas. The crawler is capable of traveling 2 ft. (0.61 m) per second along the seafloor and can avoid obstacles. The crawlers are equipped with various sonar sensors and communication equipment that enable these devices to locate and classify underwater objects and mines while rejecting miscellaneous clutter that would not pose a threat. Crawlers may be used in water depths to 60 ft. (18.3 m). Potential Impacts to the Water Column
The use of seafloor devices would not alter the water in any measurable or lasting manner. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to the water column itself. Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrate
As a result of their temporary nature, mine shapes would not permanently impact the substrate on which they are placed. However, their presence would temporarily impair the ability of the substrate to function as a habitat for as long as the mine shape is in place. As mine shapes are primarily deployed over soft bottom substrates, hard bottom would not be impacted. The level of impact to substrates from precision anchoring training exercises would depend on the size of the anchor used, which would vary according to vessel type. Since these activities only take place in pre‐designated areas consisting of soft bottom substrates, areas of hard bottom would not be affected. As most of these activities occur in areas subject to constant wave action and cycles of erosion and deposition, disturbed areas would likely be reworked by waves and tides shortly after the disturbance. Crawlers move over the surface of the seafloor and would not harm or alter any hard substrates encountered. In soft substrates, crawlers may leave a trackline of depressed sediments approximately 24 in. (62 cm) wide (the width of the device) in their wake. However, since these crawlers operate in shallow water, any disturbed sediments would be redistributed by wave and tidal action shortly following the disturbance. Any disturbance to the soft sediments would not impair their ability to function as a habitat. The use of seafloor devices during training and testing activities would potentially have an adverse effect on soft bottom substrates. These impacts would be minimal in size and temporary (recovery in days to weeks) in duration. Hard bottom substrates would not be affected by the use of seafloor devices as they are generally avoided. Potential Impacts to Biogenic Habitats
As mine shape deployment and precision anchoring exercises are typically done only in areas of soft bottom substrates, areas of live/hard bottom and coral would not be impacted. Mitigation zones are buffer areas between potential impacts and observed marine life on the surface or mapped on the bottom. The Navy will not conduct precision anchoring within the anchor swing diameter, or explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities near known or surveyed shallow coral reefs, live hardbottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks (See Section 5.0, Mitigation Measures). In addition, as a result of the distance from shore that these activities are conducted, submerged aquatic vegetation, mangroves, marshes, shellfish beds, and wetlands would also not be impacted. 4‐46 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Crawlers move over the surface of the seafloor and would not harm or alter any hard substrates encountered. In soft substrates, crawlers may leave a trackline of depressed sediments approximately 24 in. (62 cm) wide (the width of the device) in their wake. Crawler use in San Diego Bay may impact eelgrass beds if used in shallow water; however, any impact would be minimal based on the size of the crawler. The use of seafloor devices during training and testing activities are not anticipated to adversely affect hard bottom biogenic habitats due to the lack of their presence in the areas in which seafloor devices are used. Soft bottom biogenic habitat such as eelgrass beds in San Diego Bay would be adversely affected if crawler use occurred in the area; however, any impact would be considered minimal given the limited area of impact. 4.1.4
CONTAMINANT STRESSORS
This section considers the impacts on marine sediment and water quality from explosives, explosion by‐products, and chemicals or substances other than explosives associated with military expended materials (e.g., metals, chemicals, and other materials). The focus of this analysis is changes in the chemistry of substrate and water column that may adversely affect the quality of EFH for managed species. The impacts on managed species via sediment or water that do not require trophic transfer (e.g., bioaccumulation, predation) to be observed are considered here. Potential impacts that can only be observed after trophic transfer are considered in the Ecosystem Technical Report for Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Department of the Navy et al. 2012), available from: http://hstteis.com/Portals/0/hstteis/SupportingTechnicalDocs/HSTT_DEIS_Ecosytem_Technical_Report.
pdf. 4.1.4.1
Explosives and Explosive Byproducts
High‐order explosions consume most of the explosive material, creating typical combustion products. In the case of Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX), 98 percent of the products are common seawater constituents and the remainder is rapidly diluted below threshold effect level (U.S. Department of the Navy 2008e) (Table 4‐18). Explosion byproducts associated with high‐order detonations present no stressors to fish and invertebrates through sediment or water chemistry. Low‐order detonations and unexploded ordnance present elevated likelihood of effects on fish or invertebrates. Deposition of undetonated explosive materials into the marine environment can be reasonably well estimated by the known failure and low‐order detonation rates of high explosives (Table 4‐19). Undetonated explosives associated with ordnance disposal and mine clearance are collected after training is complete; therefore, potential impacts are assumed to be inconsequential and not detectable for these training and testing activities. The fish and invertebrates inhabiting EFH may be exposed by contact with the explosive, contact with contaminants in the EFH, and ingestion of contaminated sediments. Table 4‐20 provides a list of ordnance constituents remaining after low‐order detonations and with unconsumed explosives. These constituents are in addition to the high explosives contained in the ordnance. Lead azide, titanium compounds, perchlorates, barium chromate, and fulminate of mercury are not natural constituents of seawater. Lead oxide is a rare, naturally occurring mineral. It is one of several lead compounds that form films on lead objects in the marine environment (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 2007). Metals are discussed in Section 4.1.4.2. 4‐47 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 4‐18: Byproducts From the Underwater Detonation of a High Blast Explosive Predicted
Concentration (mg/L)
Permissible
Concentration (mg/L)
Aluminum oxide
0.4340
N/A
Carbon
0.1430
N/A
Carbon monoxide
0.0293
0.552
Ethane
0.0047
120
Carbon dioxide
0.0026
1.0
Ammonia
0.0023
0.092
Propane
0.0014
120
Hydrogen cyanide
0.0003
0.001
Methane
0.0001
120
< 0.0001
─
Byproduct
Other compounds*
Notes: * Other compounds include methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, acetylene, and
phosphine. Predicted concentrations were well below permissible concentrations.
“<” means “less than”; mg/L= milligrams per liter
Table 4‐19: Failure Rates and Low‐Order Detonation Rates of Military Ordnance Failure Rate (%)
Low-Order Detonation
Rate (%)
Guns/artillery
4.68
0.16
Hand grenades
1.78
─
High explosive ordnance
3.37
0.09
Rockets
3.84
─
Submunitions*
8.23
─
Ordnance
Notes: * Submunitions are munitions contained within and distributed by another device such as a
rocket.
Table 4‐20: Constituents Remaining After Low‐Order Detonations and From Unconsumed Explosives Ordnance Component
Pyrotechnics
Tracers
Spotting Charges
Oxidizers
Delay Elements
Fuses
Detonators
Primers
Constituent
Barium chromate (BaCrO4)
Potassium perchlorate
Chlorides
Phosphorus
Titanium compounds
Lead (II) oxide (PbO)
Barium chromate (BaCrO4)
Potassium perchlorate
Lead chromate
Potassium perchlorate
Fulminate of mercury [Hg(CNO)2]
Potassium perchlorate
Lead azide [Pb(N3)2]
Indirect impacts of explosives byproducts and unexploded ordnance on fish and invertebrates via sediment is possible in the immediate vicinity of the ordnance. Degradation products of RDX are not toxic to marine organisms at realistic exposure levels (Rosen and Lotufo 2010). Trinitrotoluene (TNT) and 4‐48 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment its degradation products impact developmental processes in fish and invertebrates and are acutely toxic to adults at concentrations similar to real‐world exposures (Rosen and Lotufo 2007a,b; 2010). Relatively low solubility of most explosives and their degradation products means that concentrations of these contaminants in the marine environment are relatively low and readily diluted. Furthermore, while explosives and their degradation products were detectable in marine sediment approximately 6 to 12 in. (15 to 30 cm) away from degrading ordnance, the concentrations of these compounds were not statistically distinguishable from background beyond 3 and 6 ft. (1 and 2 m) from the degrading ordnance. Taken together, fish or invertebrates may be adversely impacted by the effects of degrading explosives within a very small radius of the explosive 1 to 6 ft. (0.3 to 2 m). This area is smaller than the crater radius for the smallest explosive footprint analyzed in Section 4.1.1.2.1 (Explosives), suggesting the impacts of explosives and explosive byproducts used are short‐term and minimal on water column and substrate EFH. 4.1.4.2
Metals
Certain metals and metal‐containing compounds are harmful to fish and invertebrates at concentrations above background levels (e.g., cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc, copper, manganese, and many others) (Negri et al. 2002; Wang and Rainbow 2008). Metals are introduced into seawater and sediments as a result of training and testing activities involving vessel hulks, targets, ordnance, munitions, and other military expended material including batteries. In most instances, because of the physical and chemical reactions that occur with metals in marine systems (e.g., precipitation), metals often concentrate in sediments. Thus, metal contaminants in sediments are more of an issue than metals in the water column. Many metals bioaccumulate and some physiological impacts begin to occur only after several trophic transfers concentrate the toxic metals. Impacts of metals on fish and invertebrates via sediment and water involve concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than concentrations achieved via bioaccumulation. Fish and invertebrates may be exposed by contact with the metal, contact with contaminants in the sediment or water, and ingestion of contaminated material. Despite the acute toxicity of some metals (e.g., hexavalent chromium or tributyltin) (Negri et al. 2002), concentrations above safe limits are scarcely encountered even in live fire areas of the former Navy training range off Vieques, Puerto Rico, where deposition of metals from Navy activities is very high (Pait et al. 2010). Other studies find no harmful concentrations of metals associated with deposition of military metals into the marine environment (Buchman 2008). It is conceivable that fish or invertebrate eggs or larvae could be impacted by metals via sediment within a few inches of the object. No adverse impact on EFH from metals is anticipated based on studies comparing metal contamination levels and levels considered safe. It is unlikely that fish or invertebrates will be adversely impacted by the physiological effects of metals before they bioaccumulate to higher trophic levels. 4.1.4.3
Chemicals
Several Navy training and testing activities introduce potentially harmful chemicals into the marine environment, principally ship hulks (sinking exercises), flares and propellants for rockets, missiles, and torpedoes. In the past, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been raised as a chemical pollutant issue because they have been found in certain solid materials on vessel hulks used as targets during vessel‐sinking 4‐49 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment exercises (e.g., insulation, wires, felts, and rubber gaskets). Currently, vessels used for sinking exercises are selected from a list of Navy approved vessels that have been cleaned in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. By rule, a sinking exercise must be conducted at least 50 nm offshore and in water at least 6,000 ft. (1,830 m) deep (40 C.F.R. 229.2). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that as much as 100 lb. (45 kg) of PCBs remain onboard sunken vessels. The agency considers the contaminant levels released during the sinking of a target to be within the standards of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1341, et seq.) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1999). Based on the foregoing considerations, PCBs will not be considered further. Properly functioning flares, missiles, rockets, and torpedoes combust most of their propellants, leaving benign or readily diluted soluble combustion byproducts (e.g., hydrogen cyanide). Operational failures allow release of propellants and their degradation products into the marine environment. The greatest risk to fish and invertebrates from flares, missile, and rocket propellants is perchlorate, which is highly soluble in water, persistent, and impacts metabolic processes in many plants and animals. Perchlorate contamination rapidly disperses throughout the water column and water within sediments. While it impacts terrestrial biological processes at low concentrations (e.g., less than 10 ppb), toxic concentrations are unlikely to be encountered in seawater. The principal mode of perchlorate toxicity in the environment is bioaccumulation. In contrast to perchlorate, the principal toxic components of torpedo fuel—propylene glycol dinitrate and nitrodiphenylamine—adsorb to sediments, have relatively low toxicity, and are readily degraded by biological processes. The MK‐48 torpedo weighs roughly 3,700 lb. (1,680 kg) and uses Otto Fuel II as a liquid propellant. Otto Fuel II is composed of propylene glycol dinitrate and nitro‐diphenylamine (76 percent), dibutyl sebacate (23 percent) and 2‐nitrodiphenylamine as a stabilizer (2 percent). Combustion byproducts of Otto Fuel II include nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide. During normal venting of excess pressure or upon failure of the torpedo's buoyancy bag, the following are discharged: carbon dioxide, water, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, ammonia, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, potassium chloride, ferrous oxide, potassium hydroxide, and potassium carbonate (U.S. Department of the Navy 1996a, b). It is conceivable that marine fish and invertebrate eggs, or larvae could be impacted by propellants via sediment in the immediate vicinity of the object (e.g., within a few inches), but these potential impacts would diminish rapidly as the propellant degrades. Fish and invertebrates may be exposed by contact with the chemicals, contact with chemical contaminants in the sediment or water, and ingestion of contaminated material. No adverse impact on EFH from these chemicals is anticipated based on the miniscule range of harmful impacts. It is unlikely that fish or invertebrates will be adversely impacted by the physiological effects of chemicals other than explosives and explosive byproducts before they bioaccumulate to higher trophic levels. Chemical simulants are used as substitutes for chemical warfare agents during the testing of Navy equipment intended to detect chemical warfare agents. Two common simulants are glacial acetic acid, used to simulate blistering agents, and triethyl phosphate, used to simulate nerve agents. Glacial acetic acid is a strong concentration of acetic acid, a clear, colorless liquid with a strong vinegar‐like odor (U.S. Department of the Navy 2004). Vinegar is five percent acetic acid. Acetic acid occurs throughout nature 4‐50 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment as a normal metabolite of both plants and animals. Biodegradation in water is rapid, and a large number of biological screening studies have demonstrated that acetic acid biodegrades readily under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions and, therefore, does not bioaccumulate. If released into water, acetic acid is not expected to adsorb to suspended solids and sediment based on aquatic adsorption studies. Glacial acetic acid is listed on the chemical substance inventory of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.), but is not further regulated under the act. It is not listed as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.) and does not have a toxic chemical release reporting requirement under the Emergency Planning and Community Right‐to‐Know Act (42 U.S.C. 11001, et seq.). The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration does not list glacial acetic acid as a hazardous chemical (U.S. Department of the Navy 2004). Triethyl phosphate is regulated by the federal Food and Drug Administration as an adhesive for packaging, holding, or transporting food (U.S. Department of the Navy 2004). In water, triethyl phosphate does not bioconcentrate, absorb to sediments or particulate matter, or volatilize significantly. Its half‐life under environmental conditions is between five and ten years (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). Triethyl phosphate is also a common component of insecticides and is known to negatively affect marine organisms. The majority of triethyl phosphate in marine waters arrives from runoff of agricultural areas during the spring and summer growing seasons (Bottger et al. 2001). Triethyl phosphate is not listed on the Toxic Substance Control Act’s Health and Safety Reporting List, nor is it listed as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or as a hazardous substance under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq.) (U.S. Department of the Navy 2004). During prior tests, between 1 percent and 7 percent of these simulants did not vaporize, and the airborne and water column concentrations were one to two orders of magnitude lower than human health and ecological toxicity standards. Releases during those tests involved 10 gallons (38 liters) of each simulant; each was released 20 times. The standards used were established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The standard for glacial acetic acid is a concentration of 8.8 x 10‐5 kilograms per cubic meters (kg/m3); for triethyl phosphate the standard is a concentration of 2.5 x 10‐5 kg/m3; both are for eight hours of exposure. Surface deposition modeling indicated that four minutes after release, the concentration of glacial acetic acid would be 10‐6 kilograms per square meters (kg/m2) over an area of 0.4 km2; for triethyl phosphate, the concentration would be 10‐5 kg/m2 (the standard is a concentration of 10‐5 kg/m2 over an area of 0.003 km2) (U.S. Department of the Navy 2004). Prior environmental evaluations of simulant testing concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts (U.S. Department of the Navy 2004). Therefore, glacial acetic acid and triethyl phosphate would not have negative impacts and will not be considered further. 4.1.4.4
Other Materials
All military expended material, including targets and vessel hulks involved in sinking exercises contains materials other than metals, explosives, or chemicals. Principal components of these military expended materials include aluminized fiberglass (chaff), carbon or Kevlar fiber (missiles), and plastics (canisters, targets, sonobuoy components, parachutes). Chaff has been extensively studied, and no indirect toxic effects are known at realistic concentrations in the marine environment (Arfsten et al. 2002). Glass, carbon, and Kevlar fibers are not known to have potential toxic effects on marine invertebrates. Plastics contain chemicals that have potential effects on fish and invertebrates (Derraik 2002; Mato et al. 2001; Teuten et al. 2007). Potentially harmful chemicals in plastics are not readily adsorbed to marine sediments; instead, fish and invertebrates are most at risk via ingestion or bioaccumulation. Because plastics retain many of their 4‐51 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment chemical properties as they physically degrade into plastic particles (Singh and Sharma 2008), the exposure risks to marine invertebrates are dispersed over time. It is conceivable that marine invertebrates could be indirectly impacted by chemicals associated with plastics, but, absent bioaccumulation, these effects would be limited to direct contact with the material. Marine invertebrates and fish may be exposed by contact with the plastic, contact with associated plastic chemical contaminants in the sediment or water, and ingestion of contaminated material. No adverse impact on EFH from these other materials is anticipated based on the direct contact required for harmful impacts. It is unlikely that fish or invertebrates will be adversely impacted by the physiological effects of other materials before they bioaccumulate to higher trophic levels. 4.1.5
STUDY AREA COMBINED IMPACT OF NAVY STRESSORS
Of all the potential stressors, only explosives on or near the bottom and military expended materials have the potential to adversely impact marine habitats as a substrate for biological communities. The impact area for underwater explosions and military expended materials were all much less than one percent of the total area of documented soft bottom or hard bottom in their respective training or testing areas. The percentages are even lower for substrate impacts in the Study Area as a whole (Table 4‐21). Even multiplying by five years, the impacts are all less than one percent of the benthic substrate with very unlikely worst case scenarios. Such a low percentage of bottom habitat impacted suggests no significant impact on marine substrates and associated biogenic habitats from either individual stressors or combined stressors. Table 4‐21: Combined Impact on Marine Substrates for Proposed Action 2
Impact Footprint (m )
Training Area
Underwater Explosions
Hawaii Range Complex
Southern California Range
Complex
Silver Strand Training Complex
Transit Corridor
Total
Military Expended Materials
Total
23,288
424,101
447,389
86,096
223,747
309,843
75,668
0
185,052
59
1,201
649,108
75,727
1,201
834,160
2
Note: m = square meters
Section 5.0 (Mitigation Measures) describes standard operating procedures (SOPs) and mitigation measures proposed to help reduce the potential impacts of explosives on or near the bottom and military expended materials on marine substrates and associated biogenic habitats.
4‐52 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 5 MITIGATION MEASURES
This section describes the Navy’s standard operating procedures and mitigation measures that are designed to help reduce or avoid potential impacts to EFH or HAPCs. 5.1
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
The Navy currently employs standard practices to provide for the safety of personnel and equipment, including ships and aircraft, as well as the success of the training and testing activities. For the purpose of this document, we will refer to standard practices as SOPs. Because of their importance for maintaining safety and mission success, SOPs have been considered as part of the Proposed Action. The only standard operating procedure designed to reduce or avoid EFH is for towed in‐water devices: “Prior to deploying a towed device, there is a standard operating procedure to search the intended path of the device for any floating debris (e.g., driftwood) or other potential obstructions (e.g., animals), since they have the potential to cause damage to the device.” 5.2
MITIGATION MEASURES
The Navy recognizes that the Proposed Action has the potential to impact EFH or HAPCs. Unlike SOPs, which are established for reasons other than environmental benefit, mitigation measures are modifications to the Proposed Action that are implemented for the sole purpose of reducing a specific potential environmental impact on a particular resource. The procedures discussed in this chapter, most of which are currently or were previously implemented as a result of formal or informal consultations with regulatory agencies, are being implemented by the Navy. Most exercises are generally conducted in the open ocean away from EFH, HAPC, and other sensitive habitats to the extent practicable, or activities are restricted to specific areas or designated beaches.The mitigation measures protecting EFH and HAPCs fall under two categories: Lookouts and mitigation zones. The mitigation measures presented in Table 5‐1 will be effective at reducing potential impacts on EFH, and from the Navy’s perspective, are practicable, executable, and will not impact safety and readiness. The Lookouts on Navy vessels are trained to identify marine mammals, sea turtles, and floating macroalgae and to avoid physical impacts where possible; target areas should be clear of marine species. Mitigation zones are buffer areas between potential impacts and observed marine life on the surface or mapped on the bottom. Table 5‐1: Procedural Mitigation Measures Activity Category or
Mitigation Area
Lookout
Procedural
Measure
Mitigation Zone and Protection Focus
1
200 yd. (183 m) for floating vegetation and kelp paddies
General: 1
or 2 (NEW
dependent)
Diver
placed: 2
HRC: The Navy will not conduct these activities within 350
yd. (320 m) of known or surveyed1 shallow coral reefs2,
live hardbottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks
SOCAL and SSTC: The Navy will avoid known or
surveyed shallow coral reefs, live hardbottom, artificial
reefs, and shipwrecks to the greatest extent practicable
Acoustic (Non-Impulsive Stressors)
High-frequency and Non-hull Mounted
Mid-frequency Active Sonar
Acoustic (Explosive/Impulsive Stressors)
Mine Countermeasures and Mine
Neutralization using Positive Control
5‐1 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 5‐1: Procedural Mitigation Measures (continued)
Activity Category or
Mitigation Area
Lookout
Procedural
Measure
Mitigation Zone and Protection Focus
Acoustic (Explosive/Impulsive Stressors) (continued)
Improved Extended Echo Ranging
Sonobuoys
1
400 yd. (366 m) for floating vegetation and kelp paddies
Anti-Swimmer Grenades
1
200 yd. (183 m) for floating vegetation and kelp paddies
Gunnery Exercises using Small or
Medium Caliber (Surface Target)
1
200 yd. (183 m) for floating vegetation
350 yd. (320 m) of known or surveyed shallow coral reefs
Gunnery Exercises using Large
Caliber (Surface Target)
1
600 yd. (549 m) for floating vegetation and kelp paddies
350 yd. (320 m) of known or surveyed shallow coral reefs
Missile Exercises Up to 250 lb. NEW
(Surface Target)
1
900 yd. (823 m) for floating vegetation and kelp paddies
350 yd. (320 m) of known or surveyed shallow coral reefs
Missile Exercises Up to 500 lb. NEW
(Surface Target)
1
2,000 yd. (1.8 km) for floating vegetation and kelp paddies
350 yd. (320 m) of known or surveyed shallow coral reefs
Bombing Exercises
1
2,500 yd. (2.3 km) for floating vegetation and kelp paddies
350 yd. (320 m) of known or surveyed shallow coral reefs
Torpedo (Explosive) Testing
1
2,100 yd. (1.9 km) for floating vegetation and jellyfish
aggregations
Sinking Exercises
2
2.5 nm for floating vegetation and jellyfish aggregations
At-sea Explosive Testing
1
1,600 yd. (1.4 km) for floating vegetation and kelp paddies
350 yd. (320 m) of known or surveyed shallow coral reefs
Pile Driving
1
60 yd.
Vessels
1
500 yd. (whales); 200 yd. (other marine mammals)
Towed Devices
1
250 yd.
Non-Explosive Practice Munitions
(Small, Medium, and Large Caliber
with a Surface Target)
1
200 yd.
350 yd. (320 m) of known or surveyed shallow coral reefs
Non-Explosive Practice Munitions
(Bombing Exercises)
1
1,000 yd.
350 yd. (320 m) of known or surveyed shallow coral reefs
Physical Strike and Disturbance
1
For mitigation, the term "surveyed" refers to bottom features where the available data indicate the natural boundary of the
feature at a generally constant accuracy. Data that are generalized within large geometric areas (e.g., grid cells) are not included.
2
Shallow-water coral reefs include mesophotic coral reef systems to an approximate maximum depth of 200 meters based on the
approximate depth of the photic zone.
The Navy applies two approaches to mitigation zones for seafloor habitats depending on the type of activity. The Navy will not conduct the following activities within 350 yd. (320 m) of known or surveyed shallow coral reefs: •
•
•
Explosive or non‐explosive small, medium, and large caliber gunnery exercises using a surface target Explosive missile exercises using a surface target Explosive and non‐explosive bombing exercises 5‐2 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing •
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment At‐sea explosives testing In addition to the activities’ mitigation measures described above, the Navy will avoid to the greatest extent practicable known or surveyed shallow coral reefs, live hardbottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks for precision anchoring within the anchor swing diameter and explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities in SOCAL and SSTC. The Navy will not conduct precision anchoring within the anchor swing diameter, or explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities within 350 yd. (320 m) of known mapped shallow coral reefs, live hardbottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks in HRC. To facilitate these protective measures, the Navy will include maps of known shallow coral reefs, artificial reefs, shipwrecks, and live hard bottom during planning of training and testing events. The Navy’s currently implemented seafloor habitats and shipwreck mitigation zones are based off the range to effects for marine mammals or sea turtles, which are driven by hearing thresholds. Instead, the recommended measures are modified to focus on reducing potential physical impacts to seafloor habitats from explosives, and physical strike from military expended materials. The recommended 350 yd. (320 m) mitigation zone is based off the estimated maximum crater impact for explosions discussed in Section 4.1.1.2.1 (Explosives). The use of non‐explosive military expended materials would result in a smaller footprint of potential impact; however, the Navy recommends applying the explosive mitigation zone to all explosive and non‐explosive activities as listed above for ease of implementation. This standard mitigation zone will consequently result in an additional protection buffer during the non‐
explosive activities listed above. Avoiding or minimizing physical disturbance and strike of these resources will likely reduce the impact on these resources. The Navy proposes implementing the recommended measures described above because: (1) they are likely to result in avoidance or reduction of physical disturbance and strike to sensitive habitats; and (2) they have acceptable operational impacts to the proposed activity with regard to safety, practicability, impact to readiness, and Navy policy.
5‐3 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank
5‐4 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 6 CONCLUSIONS
The potential impacts from the Proposed Action on EFH and HAPC among the Fishery Management Council regions did not exceed a determination of minimal. Refer to relevant sections for supporting details for each conclusion. The individual stressor impacts were all either no effect or minimal and ranged in duration from temporary to permanent, depending on the habitat impacted (Table 6‐1). Table 6‐1: Potential Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern from each Stressor Stressors
Water Column
Substrate
Biogenic
HAPC
Acoustic stressors (Section 4.1.1)
Non-impulsive
• Sonar
• Vessel noise
Explosive and other
impulsive
• Underwater
explosions
• Pile driving
• Swimmer
defense air guns
• Weapons firing,
launch, and
impact noise
Minimal and
temporary
No effect
No effect
No effect
Minimal and
temporary
Minimal and short
term (soft bottom) to
permanent (hard
bottom); mitigation
avoids mapped hard
bottom.
• Attached macroalgae:
minimal and long term
based on hard
substrate impacts
• Submerged rooted
vegetation: minimal
and long-term;
mitigation avoids
sensitive nearshore
habitats
• Sedentary invertebrate
beds: minimal and
short term to
permanent (based on
substrate impacts);
mitigation avoids
mapped hard bottom
• Reefs: minimal and
long term; mitigation
avoids coral reefs
Minimal and variable
duration (habitat
dependent);
mitigation avoids
sensitive nearshore
habitats, mapped
hard bottom, and
surface macroalgae
concentrations
No effect
No effect
No effect
Minimal and short
term for offshore
HAPCs; mitigation
avoids mapped hard
bottom and
macroalgae
concentrations
Minimal and short
term for offshore
HAPCs
Energy stressors (Section 4.1.2)
Electromagnetic
Less than
No effect
devices
minimal and
temporary
Physical disturbance and strike stressors (Section 4.1.3)
Vessel movement
No effect
No effect
In-water devices
No effect
• Biogenic habitats: no
impact; mitigation
avoids sensitive
nearshore habitats
No effect
6‐1 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table 6‐1: Potential Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern from each Stressor (continued) Stressors
Water Column
Substrate
Biogenic
Physical disturbance and strike stressors (Section 4.1.3) (continued)
Military expended
Minimal and
Minimal and long
• Attached macroalgae:
materials
temporary
term to permanent
Minimal and short
term;
• Submerged rooted
vegetation; minimal
and long term;
mitigation avoids
sensitive nearshore
habitats
• Sedentary invertebrate
beds: minimal and long
term to permanent
(based on substrate
impacts)
• Reefs: minimal and
long term; mitigation
avoids shallow coral
reefs
Seafloor devices
No effect
No effect
Minimal and temporary
Contaminant stressors (Section 4.1.4)
Explosives and
Minimal and
explosive byproducts short term
Minimal and short
term
Metals
Chemicals
Other materials
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
• Sedentary invertebrate
beds and reefs:
Minimal and short term
• Other biogenic
habitats: no effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
HAPC
Minimal and variable
duration (habitat
dependent);
mitigation avoids
sensitive nearshore
habitats and surface
macroalgae
concentrations
Minimal and
temporary for
nearshore and
shallow, offshore
HAPCs
Minimal and short
term
No effect
No effect
No effect
Note: HAPC = Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
Pursuant to the EFH requirements of the MSA and implementing regulations, explosives on or near the bottom and military expended materials may adversely affect EFH or HAPC at a minimal level, for variable (habitat dependent) duration (refer to Section 4.2.3 [Combined impact of multiple stressors] for analysis). The mitigation measures (Table 5‐1) should reduce the minimal potential impact from permanent (e.g., hard bottom, submerged rooted vegetation, reefs) to short term (e.g., soft bottom,) for explosives on or near the bottom and military expended materials deposited in nearshore and shallow offshore habitats. There are no existing or proposed mitigation measures protecting deep‐water habitats from military expended materials in the Study Area.
6‐2 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment 7 REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2007). Toxicological profile for lead. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services. Allen, J. A. (1998). Mangroves as alien species: The case of Hawaii. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, 7(1), 61‐71. Allen, L. G. & Pondella, D. J. (2006). Surf zone, coastal pelagic zone, and harbors. In L. G. Allen, D. J. Pondella, II and M. H. Horn (Eds.), The Ecology of Marine Fishes: California and Adjacent Waters (pp. 149‐166). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Allen, L. G., Yoklavich, M. M., Cailliet, G. M. & Horn, M. H. (2006). Bays and estuaries. In L. G. Allen, D. J. Pondella, II and M. H. Horn (Eds.), The Ecology of Marine Fishes: California and Adjacent Waters (pp. 119‐148). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Allen, M. J., Groce, A. K., Diener, D., Brown, J., Steinert, S. A., Deets, G., Mikel, T. (2002). Southern California Bight 1998 Regional Monitoring Program: V. Demersal Fishes and Megabenthic Invertebrates. (pp. 572). Westminster, CA: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Amoser, S. A. & Ladich, F. (2005). Are hearing sensitivities of freshwater fish adapted to the ambient noise in their habitats? Journal of Experimental Biology, 208( ), 3533‐3542. Aplin, J.A. (1947). The effect of explosives on marine life. California Fish and Game, 33, 23‐30. Arfsten, D.P., C.L. Wilson, & B.J. Spargo. (2002). Radio Frequency Chaff: The Effects of Its Use in Training on the Environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 53(1), 1‐11. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WDM‐482XDXP‐
1/2/8251fde540591fc2c72f20159f9d62b3. Astrup, J. (1999). Ultrasound detection in fish ‐ a parallel to the sonar‐mediated detection of bats by ultrasound‐sensitive insects? Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology a‐Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 124(1), 19‐27. Astrup, J., & B. Mohl. (1993). Detection of intense ultrasound by the cod Gadus morhua. Journal of Experimental Biology, 182, 71‐80. Au, W.W.L. & Banks, K. (1998). The acoustics of the snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris in Kaneohe Bay. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103(1), 41‐47. Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System Database. (2010). Shipwreck Database. Barber, R. T. & Chavez, F. P. (1983). Biological consequences of El Niño. Science, 222(4629), 1203‐1210. Barber, R. T., Kogelschatz, J. E. & Chavez, F. P. (1985). Origin of productivity anomalies during the 1982‐
83 El Niño. CalCOFI Reports, 26, 65‐71. Batteen, M. L., Cipriano, N. J. & Monroe, J. T. (2003). A large‐scale seasonal modeling study of the California Current System. Journal of Oceanography, 59(5), 545‐562. 7‐1 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Berglind, R., D. Menning, R. Tryman, A. Helte, P. Leffler, & R.‐M. Karlsson. (2009). Environmental effects of underwater explosions: a literature study. (Vol. No FOI‐2009‐975, pp. 65 pages) Totalforsvarets Forskningsinstitut, FOI. Boehlert, G.W., & A.B. Gill. (2010). Environmental and Ecological Effects of Ocean Renewable Energy Development; A Current Synthesis. Oceanography, 23(2), 68‐81. Bograd, S. J. (2004). California current. In Marine Ecosystems of the North Pacific. (PICES Special Publication 1, pp. 177‐191) North Pacific Marine Science Organization. Available from http://www.pices.int/publications/special_publications/NPESR/2005/npesr_2005.aspx Bograd, S. J., DiGiacomo, P. M., Durazo, R., Hayward, T. L., Hyrenbach, K. D., Lynn, R. J., Moore, C. S. (2000). The State of the California Current, 1999‐2000: Forward to a new regime? CalCOFI Report, 41, 26‐52. Bond, A. B., Jr J S.Stephens, D. Pondella, M. J. Allen, & M. Helvey. (1998). A method for estimating marine habitat values based on fish guilds, with comparisons between sites in the Southern California Bight. 1 1998. Asilomar, California. Bottger, S.A., J.B. McClintock, & T.S. Klinger. (2001). Effects of inorganic and organic phosphates on feeding, feeding absorption, nutrient allocation, growth and righting responses of the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus. Marine Biology, 138, 741–751. Bouillon, S. (2009). The management of natural coastal carbon sinks D. D. A. Laffoley and G. Grimsditch (Eds.). Prepared by International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Buchman, M.F. (2008). NOAA screening quick reference tables (NOAA OR&R Report 08‐1 ). Office of Response and Restoration Division. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved from http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/122_NEW‐SQuiRTs.pdf as accessed on 2011, February 18. Budelmann, B.U. (1992a). Hearing by Crustacea D. B. Webster, R. R. Fay and A. N. Popper (Eds.), Evolutionary Biology of Hearing (pp. 131‐139). New York: Springer Verlag. Budelmann, B.U. (1992b). Hearing in nonarthropod invertebrates D. B. Webster, R. R. Fay and A. N. Popper (Eds.), Evolutionary Biology of Hearing (pp. 141‐155). New York: Springer Verlag. Bullock, T.H., D.A. Bodznick, & R.G. Northcutt. (1983). The Phylogenetic Distribution of Electroreception ‐ Evidence for Convergent Evolution of a Primitive Vertebrate Sense Modality. Brain Research Reviews, 6(1), 25‐46. Buran, B.N., X. Deng, & A.N. Popper. (2005). Structural variation in the inner ears of four deep‐sea elopomorph fishes. Journal of Morphology, 265(215‐225), 215‐225. California Department of Fish and Game. (2001a). Artificial reef coordinates in Southern California (Appendix 1). In. In A Guide to the Artificial Reefs of Southern California. Modified version of A Guide to the Artificial Reefs of Southern California (1989), by Robin D. Lewis and Kimberly K. McGee and the Nearshore Sportfish Habitat Enhancement Program ed. Retrieved from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/artificialreefs/appendix1.pdf, 05 June 2010. 7‐2 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment California Department of Fish and Game. (2001b). A Guide to the Artificial Reefs of Southern California. Modified version of A Guide to the Artificial Reefs of Southern California (1989), by Robin D. Lewis and Kimberly K. McGee and the Nearshore Sportfish Habitat Enhancement Program ed. [Web Page]. Retrieved from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/artificialreefs/index.asp, 05 June 2010. California Department of Fish and Game. (2002). Nearshore Fishery Management Plan. October. California Department of Fish and Game. (2009). Regional Profile of the MLPA South Coast Study Region (Point Conception to the California‐Mexico Border). (pp. 193). Sacramento, CA: California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, California Natural Resources Agency. Carter, A. & Prekel, S. (2008). Benthic colonization and ecological successional patterns on a planned nearshore artificial reef (AR) system in Broward County, SE Florida. In: 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 7‐11 July 2008. Available online at http://www.nova.edu/ncri/11icrs/abstract_files/icrs2008‐001637.pdf. Casper, B.M., P.S. Lobel, & H.Y. Yan. (2003). The hearing sensitivity of the little skate, Raja erinacea: A comparison of two methods. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 68( ), 371‐379. Casper, B.M. & Mann, D.A. (2006). Evoked potential audiograms of the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) and the yellow stingray (Urobatis jamaicensis). Environmental Biology of Fishes, 76( ), 101‐108. Casper, B.M. & Mann, D.A. (2009). Field hearing measurements of the Atlantic sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae. Journal of Fish Biology, 75, 2768‐2776. Castro, P. & Huber, M. E. (2000). Marine prokaryotes, protists, fungi, and plants. In Marine Biology (3rd ed., pp. 83‐103). McGraw‐Hill. Castro, C. & Huber, M. E. (2007). Chemical and physical features of seawater and the world Ocean. In Marine Biology (6th ed., pp. 45‐68). New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill. Cato, D.H. & Bell, M.J. (1992). Ultrasonic ambient noise in Australian shallow waters at frequencies up to 200 kHz. (MRL‐TR‐01‐23). Chavanne, C., Flament, P., Lumpkin, R., Dousset, B. & Bentamy, A. (2002). Scatterometer observations of wind variations induced by oceanic islands: Implications for wind‐driven ocean circulation. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 28(3), 466‐474. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory Maryland & Board of Natural Resources. Dept. of Research and Education. (1948). Effects of underwater explosions on oysters, crabs and fish: a preliminary report: Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. Chmura, G. L. (2009). Tidal Salt Marshes D. d.’A. Laffoley and G. Grimsditch (Eds.), The management of natural coastal carbon sinks. (pp. 5‐11). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Clark, A.M. & Gulko, D. (1999). Hawaii's state of the reefs report, 1998. Honolulu: Department of Land and Natural Resources. 41 pp. 7‐3 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Collin, S.P. & Whitehead, D.L. (2004). The functional roles of passive electroreception in non‐electric fishes. Animal Biology, 54(1), 1‐25. Continental Shelf Associates Inc. (2004). Explosive removal of offshore structures ‐ information synthesis report U.S. Department of the Interior (Ed.). New Orleans, LA: Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region. Coombs, S. & Popper, A.N. (1979). Hearing differences among Hawaiian squirrelfish (family Holicentridae) related to differences in the peripheral auditory system. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 132, 203‐207. Covault, J. A., Normark, W. R., Romans, B. W. & Graham, S. A. (2007). Highstand fans in the California borderland: The overlooked deep‐water depositional system. Geology, 35(9), 783‐786. doi: 10.1130/G23800A.1. Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F., & LaRoe, E. (1979.) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Davis, A. R. (2009). The role of mineral, living and artificial substrata in the development of subtidal assemblages. In. In M. Wahl (Ed.), Marine Hard Bottom Communities: Patterns, Dynamics, Diversity and Change (Vol. 206, pp. 19‐37). Berlin: Springer‐Verlag. Dawes, C. J. (1998). Marine Botany (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dayton, P. K. (1985). Ecology of kelp communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 16, 215‐
245. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.16.110185.001243 Deng, X., H.‐J. Wagner, and A.N. Popper. 2011. The inner ear and its coupling to the swim bladder in the deep‐sea fish Antimora rostrata (Teleostei: Moridae). Deep‐Sea Research I, 58, 27‐37 Derraik, J.G.B. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44(9), 842‐852. Dreyer, G. D. & Niering, W. A. (1995). Tidal marshes of Long Island Sound: Ecology, history and restoration. [Electronic]. Connecticut Aboretum Bulletin, 34, 2. Retrieved from http://www.conncoll.edu/ccrec/greennet/arbo/publications/34/frame.htm Ebeling, A. W., R. J. Larson, & W. S. Alevizon. (1980). Annual variability of reef‐fish assemblages in kelp forest off Santa Barbara, California. U. S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull. 78:361‐377. Egner, S.A. & Mann, D.A. (2005). Auditory sensitivity of sergeant major damselfish Abudefduf saxatilis from post‐settlement juvenile to adult. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 285, 213‐222. Federal Aviation Administration. (2008). Special Use Airspace Order JO 7400.8P. (pp. 202). Feist, B.E. (1991). Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (O. keta) salmon behavior and distribution. Masters of Science thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 7‐4 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Feist, B. E., Anderson, J. J. & Miyamoto, R. (1992). Potential Impacts of Pile Driving on Juvenile Pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Chum (O. keta) Salmon Behavior and Distribution. (pp. 66) University of Washington. Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group. (2008). Memorandum of agreement in principle for interim criteria for injury to fish from pile driving. California Department of Transportation in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration. Flament, P., Kennan, S., Lumpkin, R., Sawyer, M. & Stroup, E. D. (2009, Last updated 11 August 2009). Ocean Atlas of Hawaii. School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawai'i. Retrieved from http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/hioos/oceanatlas/marclimat.htm, 02 June 2010. Fletcher, C. H., III, Grossman, E. E., Richmond, B. M. & Gibbs, A. E. (2002). Atlas of Natural Hazards in the Hawaiian Coastal Zone. ( Geologic Investigations Series I‐2761, pp. 182). Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey. Formicki, K., A. Tanski, M. Sadowski, & A. Winnicki. (2004). Effects of magnetic fields on fyke net performance. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 20(5), 402‐406. Foster, M. S. & Schiel, D. R. (1985). The ecology of giant kelp forests in California: A community profile. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.2). Fox, H. E. & Caldwell, R. L. (2006). Recovery From Blast Fishing on Coral Reefs: A Tale of Two Scales. Ecological Applications, 16(5), 1631‐1635. Friedlander, A.M. and E.E. DeMartini. (2002). Contrasts in Density, Size, and Biomass of Reef Fishes between the Northwestern. and the Main Hawaiian Islands: the Effects of Fishing Down Apex Predators. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 230:253‐264. Friedlander, A., Aeby, R., Brainard, R., Brown, E., Clark, A., Coles, S., Demartini, E., Dollar, S., Goodwin, S., Hunter, C., Jokiel, P., Kenyon, J., Kosaki, R., Maragos, J., Vroom, P., Walsh, B., Williams, I., & Wiltse, W. (2004). Status of the coral reefs in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Pages 411‐430 in C. Wilkinson, ed. Status of coral reefs of the world. Volume 2. Townsville, Queensland: Australian Institute of Marine Science. Friedlander, A. (ed.). (2004). Status of Hawai‘i's coastal fisheries in the new millennium, revised. A Proceeding of the 2001 fisheries symposium sponsored by the American Fisheries Society, Hawai‘i Chapter. Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Friedlander, A., Keller, K., Wedding, L., Clarke, A. and Monaco, M. (Eds.). (2009). A Marine Biogeographic Assessment of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 84, pp. 363). Silver Spring, MD. Prepared by NCCOS’s Biogeography Branch in cooperation with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. Garrison, T. (1998). Seawater chemistry. In Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science (3rd ed., pp. 138‐153). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Garrison, T. (2004). Essentials of Oceanography (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole‐Thomas Learning. 7‐5 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Gaspin, J.B., M.L. Wiley, & G.B. Peters. (1976). Experimental investigations of the effects of underwater explosions on swimbladder fish, II: 1975 Chesapeake Bay tests. Silver Spring, Maryland: White Oak Laboratory. Gelpi, C. G. & Norris, K. E. (2008). Seasonal temperature dynamics of the upper ocean in the Southern California Bight. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, C04034. doi: 10.1029/2006JC003820 Gergis, J. L. & Fowler, A. M. (2009). A history of ENSO events since A.D.1525: implications for future climate change. Climatic Change, 92(3), 343‐387. doi: 10.1007/s10584‐008‐9476‐z Gill, A.B. (2005). Offshore renewable energy: ecological implications of generating electricity in the coastal zone. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(4), 605‐615. Global Invasive Species Database. (2005). List of invasive marine algae in California. [Online database] Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. Retrieved from http://www.issg.org/database/species/search.asp?sts=sss&st=sss&fr=1&sn=&rn=California&hci
=8&ei=186&lang=EN&Image1.x=22&Image1.y=12, 05 September 2010. Gochfeld, D.J. (2004). Predation‐induced morphological and behavioral defenses in a hard coral: implications for foraging behavior of coral‐feeding butterflyfishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 267, 145‐158. Goertner, J.F. (1982). Prediction of underwater explosion safe ranges for sea mammals. (NSWC TR 82‐
188, pp. 38 pp.). Silver Spring, MD: Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren Division, White Oak Detachment. Goertner, J.F., M.L. Wiley, G.A. Young, & W.W. McDonald. (1994). Effects of underwater explosions on fish without swimbladders. (NSWC TR 88‐114). Silver Spring, MD: Naval Surface Warfare Center. Goodall, C., C. Chapman, & D. Neil. (1990). The acoustic response threshold of Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus (L.) in a free found field. K. Weise, W. D. Krenz, J. Tautz, H. Reichert and B. Mulloney (Eds.), Frontiers in Crustacean Neurobiology (pp. 106 ‐ 113). Basel: Birkhauser. Goreau, T. J. & Hayes, R. L. (1994). Coral bleaching and ocean "hot spots". Ambio, 23, 176‐180. Gorodilov, L.V. & Sukhotin, A.P. (1996). Experimental investigation of craters generated by explosions of underwater surface charges on sand. Combustion, Explosion, and Shock Waves, 32(3), 344‐346. Gorsline, D. S. (1992). The geological setting of Santa Monica and San Pedro Basins, California Continental Borderland. Progress in Oceanography, 30(1‐4), 1‐36. doi: 10.1016/0079‐
6611(92)90008‐n Gregory, J. & Clabburn, P. (2003). Avoidance behaviour of Alosa fallax fallax to pulsed ultrasound and its potential as a technique for monitoring clupeid spawning migration in a shallow river. Aquatic Living Resources, 16, 313‐316. Grigg, R.W. (1981). Coral reef development at high latitudes in Hawaii. Pages 687‐693 in E.D. Gomez, C.E. Birkeland, R.W. Buddemeier, R.E. Johannes, J.A. Marsh, Jr. and R.T. Tsuda, eds. Proceedings of the Fourth International Coral Reef Symposium, Manila, 1981. Volume 1. 7‐6 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Grigg, R.W. (1988). Paleoceanography of coral reefs in the Hawaiian‐Emperor chain. Science 240:1737‐
1743. Grigg, R. (1993). Precious coral fisheries of Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Islands. Marine Fisheries Review. 55(2):50–60. Grigg, R.W. (1997a). Hawaii's coral reefs: Status and health in 1997, The International Year of the Reef. Pages 61‐72 in R.W. Grigg and C. Birkeland, eds. Status of coral reefs in the Pacific. Sea Grant College Program, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii. Grigg, R.W. (1997b). Paleoceanography of coral reefs in the Hawaiian‐Emperor chain ‐ Revisited. Pages 117‐121 in Proceedings of the Eighth International Coral Reef Symposium. Volume 1. Balboa, Panama: Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. Grigg R. (1998). Status of the black coral fishery in Hawaii ‐1998. Report prepared under contract with Office of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Haertel, L., and C. Osterberg. 1967. Ecology of zooplankton, benthos and fishes in the Columbia River estuary. Ecology 48: 459‐472. Hamernik, R.P. & Hsueh, K.D. (1991). Impulse noise: some definitions, physical acoustics and other considerations. [special]. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90(1), 189‐196. Harborne, A.R., P.J. Mumby, F. Micheli, C.T. Perry, C.P. Dahlgren, K.E. Holmes, & D.R. Brumbaugh (2006). The Functional Value of Caribbean Coral Reef, Seagrass and Mangrove Habitats to Ecosystem Processes. Advances in Marine Biology Volume 50. Hastings, M.C. (1990). Effects of underwater sound on fish. [Project no. 401778‐1600, Document 46254‐
900206‐011M, Florham Park, NJ: AT&T Bell Laboratories]. Hastings, M.C. (1995). Physical effects of noise on fishes. Presented at the Proceedings of INTER‐NOISE 95, The 1995 International Congress on Noise Control Engineering. Hastings, M.C. & Popper, A.N. (2005). Effects of sound on fish. (pp. pp. 1‐82) Report to California Department of Transportation. Hastings, M.C., A.N. Popper, J.J. Finneran, & P.J. Lanford. (1996). Effects of low‐frequency underwater sound on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost fish Astronotus ocellatus. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(3), 1759‐1766. Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources. (2006). Hawaii's Five Artificial Reefs & Corresponding Commercial Fish Catch Areas ‐ Map [Electronic Map]. (Area covered: Hawaii Islands). Hawkins, A.D., and A.D.F. Johnstone. (1978). The hearing of the Atlantic salmon, Salmo solar. Journal of Fish Biology, 13, 655‐673. Hayward, T. L. (2000). El Niño 1997‐98 in the coastal waters of Southern California: A timeline of events. CalCOFl Reports, 41, 98‐116. 7‐7 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Heberholz, J. & Schmitz, B.A. (2001). Signaling via water currents in behavioral interactions of snapping shrimp (Alpheus heterochaelis). Biological Bulletin, 201, 6‐16. Heck, K. L., Jr, Hays, G. & Orth, R.J. (2003). Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 253, 123‐136. Helfman, G.S., B.B. Collette, D.E. Facey, & B.W. Bowen. (2009). The Diversity of Fishes: Biology, Evolution, and Ecology (2nd ed., pp. 528). Malden, MA: Wiley‐Blackwell Hickey, B.M. (1992). Circulation over the Santa Monica‐San Pedro Basin and Shelf. Progress in Oceanography, 30(1‐4), 37‐115. doi: 10.1016/0079‐6611(92)90009‐o Holland, K. T. & Elmore, P.A. (2008). A review of heterogeneous sediments in coastal environments. Earth‐Science Reviews, 89(3‐4), 116‐134. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.03.003 Howard, V. (2008). Spartina alterniflora. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL. Retrieved from: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=1125, on 31 October 2011. Hu, M.Y., H.Y. Yan, W. Chung, J. Shiao, & P. Hwang. (2009). Acoustically evoked potentials in two cephalopods inferred using the auditory brainstem response (ABR) approach. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A, 153, 278‐283. Hunter, E., Chant, R., Bowers, L., Glenn, S. & Kohut, J. (2007). Spatial and temporal variability of diurnal wind forcing in the coastal ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(3), L03607. doi:10.1029/2006gl028945 Itano, D. G. & Holland, K. N. (2000). Movement and vulnerability of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in relation to FADs and natural aggregation points. Aquatic Living Resources, 13, 213‐223. Jeffs, A., N. Tolimieri, & J.C. Montgomery. (2003). Crabs on cue for the coast: the use of underwater sound for orientation by pelagic crab stages. Marine and Freshwater Research, 54, 841‐845. Johnson, K. S., Riser, S. C. & Karl, D. M. (2010). Nitrate supply from deep to near‐surface waters of the North Pacific subtropical gyre. Nature, 465(7301), 1062‐1065. doi: 10.1038/nature09170 Jokiel, P.L., Brown, E.K., Friedlander, A., Rodgers, S.K., & Smith, W.R. (2001). Hawaii coral reef initiative, coral reef assessment and monitoring program (CRAMP), Final Report 1999‐2000. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. 66 pp. Jokiel, P.L., Brown, E.K., Friedlander, A., Rodgers, S.K., & Smith, W.R. (2004). Hawai'i coral reef assessment and monitoring program: Spatial patterns and temporal dynamics in reef coral communities. Pacific Science 58(2):159‐174. Jørgensen, R., K.K. Olsen, I.B. Falk‐Petersen, & P. Kanapthippilai. (2005). Investigations of potential effects of low frequency sonar signals on survival, development and behaviour of fish larvae and juveniles. Tromsø Norway: The Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromsø. 7‐8 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Kahng S.E. & Grigg, R. (2005). Impact of an alien octocoral, Carijoa riisei, on black corals in Hawaii. Coral Reefs. 24:556‐562. Kahng, S. E. (2007). Ecological impacts of Carijoa riiseai on black coral habitat. Report to the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council, January 2007. Honolulu, HI. Kaifu, K., T. Akamatsu, & S. Segawa. (2008). Underwater sound detection by cephalopod statocyst. Fisheries Science, 74, 781‐786. Kajiura, S.M. & Holland, K.N. (2002). Electroreception in Juvenile Scalloped Hammerhead and Sandbar Sharks. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 205, 3609‐3621. Kalmijn, A.J. (2000). Detection and processing of electromagnetic and near‐field acoustic signals in elasmobranch fishes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B‐
Biological Sciences, 355(1401), 1135‐1141. Kane, A.S., J. Song, M.B. Halvorsen, D.L. Miller, J.D. Salierno, L.E. Wysocki, D. Zeddies, & A.N. Popper. (2010). Exposure of fish to high intensity sonar does not induce acute pathology. [Uncorrected Proof]. Journal of Fish Biology. Karleskint, G., Turner, R. & Small, J. W., Jr. (2006). Introduction to Marine Biology (2nd ed., pp. 460). Belmont, California: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Keevin, T.M. & Hempen, G.L. (1997.) The environmental effects of underwater explosions with methods to mitigate impacts U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Ed.). (Vol. August, pp. 99). St. Louis, MO. Kenyon, T.N. (1996). Ontogenetic changes in the auditory sensitivity of damselfishes (pomacentridae). Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 179, 553‐561. Ketten, D. R. (1998, September, 1998). Marine Mammal Auditory Systems: A Summary of Audiometric and Anatomical Data and Its Implications for Underwater Acoustic Impacts. Dolphin‐Safe Research Program, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, LA Jolla, CA. Kvadsheim, P.H. & Sevaldsen, E.M. (2005). The potential impact of 1‐8 kHz active sonar on stocks of juvenile fish during sonar exercises. (Vol. FFI/RAPPORT‐2005/01027) Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt. Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. Ladich, F. (2008). Sound communication in fishes and the influence of ambient and anthropogenic noise. [Journal Article]. Bioacoustics, 17, 35‐37. Ladich, F. & Popper, A.N. (2004). Parallel Evolution in Fish Hearing Organs G. A. Manley, A. N. Popper and R. R. Fay (Eds.), Evolution of the Vertebrate Auditory System, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research. New York: Springer‐Verlag. Laffoley, D. d’A. & Grimsditch, G. (2009). Introduction D. d. A. Laffoley and G. Grimsditch (Eds.), The management of natural coastal carbon sinks. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 53 pp. Lalli, C. M. (1993). Biological Oceanography: An Introduction. New York: Pergamon Press. 7‐9 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Latha, G., S. Senthilvadivu, R. Venkatesan, & V. Rajendran. (2005). Sound of shallow and deep water lobsters: Measurements, analysis, and characterization (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 2720‐2723 Leet, W. S., Dewees, C. M., Klingbeil, R. & Larson, E. J. (2001). California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. (SG 01‐11, pp. 593) California Department of Fish and Game. Available from www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd Libes, S. M. (1992). An Introduction to Marine Biogeochemistry (pp. 734). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Lohmann, K.J., N.D. Pentcheff, G.A. Nevitt, G.D. Stetten, R.K. Zimmer‐Faust, H.E. Jarrard, & L.C. Boles. (1995). Magnetic orientation of spiny lobsters in the ocean: Experiments with undersea coil systems. Journal of Experimental Biology, 198(10), 2041‐2048. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2‐s2.0‐
0028850922&partnerID=40&md5=5a6fac7981fe29f142710fc30d7d69e6. Lombarte, A. & Popper, A.N. (1994). Quantitative analyses of postembryonic hair cell addition in the otolithic endorgans of the inner ear of the European hake, Merluccius merluccius (Gadiformes, Teleostei). Journal of Comparative Neurology, 345, 419‐428. Love, M. S., Schroeder, D. M., Lenarz, W., MacCall, A., Bull, A. S. & Thorsteinson, L. (2006). Potential use of offshore marine structures in rebuilding and overfished rockfish species, bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis). Fishery Bulletin, 104(3), 383‐390. Lovell, J.M., M.M. Findlay, R.M. Moate, J.R. Nedwell, & M.A. Pegg. (2005). The inner ear morphology and hearing abilities of the Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) and the Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A, 142, 286‐296. Lovell, J.M., R.M. Moate, L. Christiansen, & M.M. Findlay. (2006). The relationship between body size and evoked potentials from the statocysts of the prawn Palaemon serratus. J Exp Biol, 209, 2480‐2485. Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T. & Cappell, R. (2009). Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear. (UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies 185, or FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 523, pp. 115). Rome, Italy: United Nations Environment Programme Food, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available from http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0620e/i0620e00.HTM. Mach, K. J., Hale, B. B., Denny, M. W. & Nelson, D. V. (2007). Death by small forces: a fracture and fatigue analysis of wave‐swept macroalgae. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210(13). 10.1242/jeb.001578 Retrieved from http://jeb.biologist.org/content/210/13/2331/abstract Mackie, G.O. & Singla, C.L. (2003). The Capsular Organ of Chelyosoma productum (Ascidiacea: Corellidae): A New Tunicate Hydrodynamic Sense Organ. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 61, 45‐
58. 7‐10 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Madden, C. J., Goodin, K., Allee, R. J., Cicchetti, G., Moses, C., Finkbeiner, M. & Bamford, D. (2009). Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard ‐ Version III. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NatureServe. Mann, D.A., D.M. Higgs, W.N. Tavolga, M.J. Souza, & A.N. Popper. (2001). Ultrasound detection by clupeiform fishes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(6), 3048‐3054 Mann, D.A., Z. Lu, M.C. Hastings, & A.N. Popper. (1998). Detection of ultrasonic tones and simulated dolphin echolocation clicks by a teleost fish, the American shad (Alosa sapidissima). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104(1), 562‐568. Mann, D.A., Z. Lu, & A.N. Popper. (1997). A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound. Nature, 389, 341. Mann, D.A., A.N. Popper, & B. Wilson. (2005). Pacific herring hearing does not include ultrasound. Biology Letters, 1, 158‐161. Mantua, N. & Hare, S. R. (2002). The Pacific decadal oscillation. Journal of Oceanography, 58, 35‐44. Maragos, J. E. (2000). Hawaiian Islands (U.S.A.). In C. R. C. Sheppard (Ed.), Seas at the Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation,Vol. II: Regional Chapters: The Indian Ocean to the Pacific, pp. 791‐812). New York, NY: Elsevier Science Ltd. Maragos, J.E., D.C. Potts, G. Aeby, D. Gulko, J. Kenyon, D. Siciliano, & D. VanRavenswaay. (2004). 2000‐
2002 rapid ecological assessment of corals (anthozoa) on shallow reefs of the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Part 1: Species and distribution. Pacific Science 58(2):211‐230. Marcotte, M.M. & Lowe, C.G. (2008). Behavioral responses of two species of sharks to pulsed, direct current electrical fields: Testing a potential shark deterrent. Marine Technology Society Journal, 42(2), 53‐61. Mato, Y., T. Isobe, H. Takada, H. Kanehiro, C. Ohtake, & T. Kaminuma. (2001). Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environmental Science and Technology, 35(2), 318‐324. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2‐
s2.0‐0035863690&partnerID=40&md5=4f1891cba9aa68c931d6de5ffb256aa2. McClain CR, Lundsten L, Ream M, Barry J, & DeVogelaere A. (2009). Endemicity, Biogeography, Composition, and Community Structure On a Northeast Pacific Seamount. PLoS ONE 4(1): e4141. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004141 McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.N. Jenner, J. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, & K. McCabe. (2000). Marine seismic surveys ‐ A study of environmental implications. APPEA Journal, 692‐708. McLennan, M.W. (1997). A simple model for water impact peak pressure and pulse width: a technical memorandum. Goleta, CA: Greeneridge Sciences Inc. Millán‐Núñez, R., Alvarez‐Borrego, S. & Trees, C. C. (1997). Modeling the vertical distribution of chlorophyll in the California current system. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102(C4), 8587‐
8595. 7‐11 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Miller, J. (1994). Review of the physical oceanographic conditions within the designated sanctuary. Pages 9‐18 in K. Des Rochers, ed. 1994. A site characterization study for the Hawaiian Island Humpback Whale National Marine Sacntuary. Prepared by the University of Hawaii Sea Grant Program. Honolulu, Hawaii. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Miller, J.D. (1974). Effects of noise on people. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 56(3), 729‐
764. Miller, K., Engle, J., Uwai, S. & Kawai, H. (2007). First report of the Asian seaweed Sargassum filicinum Harvey (Fucales) in California, USA. Biological Invasions, 9(5), 609‐613. 10.1007/s10530‐006‐
9060‐2 Minerals Management Service. (1990). California, Oregon, and Washington Archaeological Resource Study. (Vol. IV: History, pp. 127). Camarillo, CA. Prepared by R. Gearhart, J. Neville and S. Hoyt. Prepared for Minerals Management Service. Minerals Management Service. (2007). Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf: Final Environmental Impact Statement. (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007‐046) US Department of the Interior and Minerals Management Service. Mintz, J.D., & Filadelfo, R.J. (2011a). Exposure of Marine Mammals to Broadband Radiated Noise. Prepared by CNA. Mintz, J.D. & Filadelfo, R.J. (2011b). Exposure of Marine Mammals to Broadband Radiated Noise. (CRM D0024311.A2/Final [distribution limited to DoD agencies only]) CNA. Mintz, J.D. & Parker, C.L. (2006). Vessel Traffic and Speed Along the U.S. Coasts and Around Hawaii [Final report]. (CRM D0013236.A2, pp. 48). Alexandria, VA: CNA Corporation. Mitsch, W. J., Gosselink, J. G., Anderson, C. J. & Zhang, L. (2009). Wetland Ecosystems (pp. 295). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Moffitt, R. B. (1980). A preliminary report on bottomfishing in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Status of Resource Investigations in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (R.W. Grigg and R.T. Pfund, eds.), pp. 216‐225. Sea Grant Misc. Rep. Hawaii Univ. UNIHI‐SEAGRANT‐MR‐80‐04. Moffitt, R. B. (1993). Deepwater demersal fish. In Nearshore marine resources of the South Pacific. Forum Fisheries Agency (Honiara)/Institute of Pacific Studies (USP, Suva), pp. 73‐95. Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (2009, Last updated 05 February 2009). Marine Flora of Monterey. [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.mbari.org/staff/conn/botany/flora/mflora.htm, 5 September 2010. Montgomery, J.C., A. Jeffs, S.D. Simpson, M.G. Meekan, & C. Tindle. (2006). Sound as an Orientation Cue for the Pelagic Larvae of Reef Fishes and Decapod Crustaceans. Advances in Marine Biology, 51. 7‐12 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Moody, A. (2000). Analysis of plant species diversity with respect to island characteristics on the Channel Islands, California. Journal of Biogeography, 27(3), 711‐723. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2656218 Mooney, T.A., R.T. Hanlon, J. Christensen‐Dalsgaard, P.T. Madsen, D. Ketten, & P.E. Nachtigall. (2010). Sound detection by the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) studied with auditory evoked potentials: sensitivity to low‐frequency particle motion and not pressure. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 213, 3748‐3759. Myrberg, A.A. (2001). The acoustical biology of elasmobranchs. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 60, 31‐
45. National Marine Fisheries Service. (2002). Magnuson‐Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat (EFH); Final Rule. 67 (12): 2343‐2383. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2001a). Office of Coast Survey. Retrieved from http://www.charts.noaa.gov/Catalogs/atlantic_chartside.shtml National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2001b). Seagrasses: An Overview for Coastal Managers. (pp. 20) NOAA Coastal Services Center. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2003). Benthic habitats of the main Hawaiian Islands. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS‐NCCOS‐CCMA‐152 (On‐Line):1‐48. Prepared by the Biogeography team, NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment, Silver Spring, Maryland. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2007). National Artificial Reef Plan (as Amended): Guidelines for Siting, Construction, Development, and Assessment of Artificial Reefs. (pp. 51) U.S. Department of Commerce and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2008). National Marine Sanctuary Program. Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. Silver Spring, MD. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2009). National Oceanographic Data Center. [Web Page]. Retrieved from http://www.nodc.noaa.gov, 06 May 2010. National Research Council. (1990). Monitoring Southern California's Coastal Waters (pp. 15). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Retrieved from Copyright protected. Navy Research Laboratory. (2011). Digital Bathymetry Data Base v 4.0. Retrieved from http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/DBDB2_WWW/NRLCOM_dbdb2.html Negri, A.P., L.D. Smith, N.S. Webster, & A.J. Heyward. (2002). Understanding ship‐grounding impacts on a coral reef: potential effects of anti‐foulant paint contamination on coral recruitment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44(2), 111‐117. 7‐13 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Nemoto, K. & Kroenke, L. W. (1981). Marine Geology of the Hess Rise 1. Bathymetry, Surface Sediment Distribution, and Environment of Deposition. Journal of Geophysical Research, 86(B11), 10734‐
10752. doi: 10.1029/JB086iB11p10734 Normandeau, Exponent, T. T., & A. Gill. (2011a). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region. Available from http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/5115.pdf. Normandeau, Exponent, T. T., & A. Gill. (2011b). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region. Available from http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/4/5115.pdf. Nybakken, J. W. (1993). Marine Biology, an Ecological Approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers. O'Connell, C.P., D.C. Abel, P.H. Rice, E.M. Stroud, & N.C. Simuro. (2010). Responses of the southern stingray (Dasyatis americana) and the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) to permanent magnets. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 43(1), 63‐73. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. (2009). Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument Condition Report 2009. (pp. 54). Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. O'Keeffe, D.J & Young, G.A. (1984). Handbook on the Environmental Effects of Underwater Explosions. NSWC TR 83‐240 Ohman, M.C., P. Sigray, & H. Westerberg. (2007). Offshore windmills and the effects electromagnetic fields on fish. Ambio, 36(8), 630‐633. Pacific Fishery Management Council. (1998). Coastal Pelagics Species Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 8 to the Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan). December. Pacific Fishery Management Council. (2008). Management of Krill as an Essential Component of the California Current Ecosystem (Amendment 12 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan). Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. February. Pacific Fishery Management Council. (2011a). Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the Californai, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery. December. Pacific Fishery Management Council. (2011b). Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (as amended thourgh Amendment 2). July. Packard, A., H.E. Karlsen, & O. Sand. (1990). Low frequency hearing in cephalopods. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 166, 501‐505. 7‐14 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Pait, A.S., A.L. Mason, D.R. Whitall, J.D. Christensen, & S.I. Hartwell. (2010). Chapter 5: An ecological characterization of the marine resources of Vieques, Puerto Rico. Bauer. L.J. and M. S. Kendall (Eds.), (pp. 101‐150 pp.). Silver Spring, MD Parrish, F.A. & A.R. Baco. (2007). Chapter 4: The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States. NOA Technical Memorandum CRCP‐3. Lumsden SE, Hourigan, T.F., Bruckner, A.W., Dorr, G. (Eds.), (pp. 155‐194). Silver Spring MD. Patek, S.N. & Caldwell, R.L. (2006). The stomatopod rumble: Low frequency sound production in Hemisquilla californiensis. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 39(2), 99‐111. Patek, S.N., L.E. Shipp, & E.R. Staaterman. (2009). The acoustics and acoustic behavior of the California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(5), 3434‐
3443 Pater, L.L. (1981). Gun blast far field peak overpressure contours. Naval Surface Weapons Center. Phillips, R. C. & Meñez, E. G. (1988). Seagrasses. Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences, 34, 104. Pickard, G.L. & Emery, W.J. (1990). Descriptive Physical Oceanography: An Introduction (5th ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Polovina, J. J., Haight, W. R., Moffitt, R. B. & Parrish, F. A. (1995). The role of benthic habitat, oceanography, and fishing on the population dynamics of the spiny lobster, Panulirus marginatus (Decapoda, Palinuridae), in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Crustaceana, 68(2), 203‐212. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20105039 Polovina, J. J., Mitchum, G. T., Graham, N. E., Craig, M. P., DeMartini, E. E. & Flint, E. N. (1994). Physical and biological consequences of a climate event in the central North Pacific. Fisheries Oceanography, 3(1), 15‐21. Popper, A.N. (1977). A scanning electron microscopic study of the sacculus and lagena in the ears of fifteen species of teleost fishes. Journal of Morphology, 153( ), 397‐418. Popper, A.N. (1980). Scanning electron microscopic studies of the sacculus and lagena in several deep sea fishes. American Journal of Anatatomy, 157( ), 115 136. Popper, A.N. (2003). Effects of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. Fisheries, 28(10), 24‐31. Popper, A.N. (2008). Effects of Mid‐ and High‐Frequency Sonars on Fish. (Contract N66604‐07M‐6056, pp. 52 pp.). Newport, Rhode Island: Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division (NUWC). Popper, A.N. & Fay, R.R. (2010). Rethinking sound detection by fishes. Hearing Research. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T73‐4Y0KWGD‐
1/2/7a2c622709c6199f8a4051cbbbffbd8c. 7‐15 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Popper, A.N., R.R. Fay, C. Platt, & O. Sand. (2003). Sound detection mechanisms and capabilities of teleost fishes S. P. Collin and N. J. Marshall (Eds.), Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environments. New York: Springer‐Verlag. Popper, A.N. & Hastings, M.C. (2009). The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. Journal of Fish Biology, 75(3), 455‐489. Popper, A.N. & Hoxter, B. (1987). Sensory and nonsensory ciliated cells in the ear of the sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 30( ), 43‐61. Popper, A.N., M. Salmon, & K.W. Horch. (2001). Acoustic detection and communication by decapod crustaceans. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 187, 83‐89. Popper, A.N. & Schilt, C.R. (2008). Hearing and acoustic behavior (basic and applied) J. F. Webb, R. R. Fay and A. N. Popper (Eds.), Fish Bioacoustics. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. Preskitt, L. (2001). Halophila hawaiiana. In Invasive Marine Algae of Hawai'i. [Web page] University of Hawai'i at Manoa Department of Botany. Retrieved from http://www.hawaii.edu/reefalgae/invasive_algae/seagrasses/halophia_hawaiiana.htm Preskitt, L. (2002a). Edible Limu: Gifts from the Sea. [Poster] University of Hawai'i at Manoa Department of Botany. Retrieved from http://www.hawaii.edu/reefalgae/publications/ediblelimu/index.htm, 05 September 2010. Preskitt, L. (2002b). Halophila decipiens. In Invasive Marine Algae of Hawai'i. [Web page] University of Hawai‘i at Manoa Department of Botany. Retrieved from http://www.hawaii.edu/reefalgae/invasive_algae/seagrasses/halophila_decipiens.htm, 16 June 2010. Qiu, B., Koh, D. A., Lumpkin, C. & Flament, P. (1997). Existence and Formation Mechanism of the North Hawaiian Ridge Current. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 27(3), 431‐444. doi: 10.1175/1520‐
0485(1997)027<0431:EAFMOT>2.0.CO;2 Radford, C., A. Jeffs, & J.C. Montgomery. (2007). Directional swimming behavior by five species of crab postlarvae in response to reef sound. Bulletin of Marine Science, 80(2), 369‐378. Radford, C., J. Stanley, C. Tindle, J.C. Montgomery, & A. Jeffs. (2010). Localised coastal habitats have distinct underwater sound signatures. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 401, 21‐29. Ralston, S. (1984). Biological constraints on production and related management issues in the Hawaiian deepsea handline fishery. UNIHI‐SEAGRANT‐MR‐84‐01. University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program, Honolulu. Ralston, S., and J.J. Polovina. (1982). A multispecies analysis of the commercial deep‐sea handline fishery in Hawaii. Fisherv Bulletin. U.S, 80 (3): 435‐448. Ramcharitar, J.U., X. Deng, D. Ketten, & A.N. Popper. (2004). Form and function in the unique inner ear of a teleost: The silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura). Journal of Comparative Neurology, 475(4), 531‐539. 7‐16 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Ramcharitar, J.U., Higgs, D. & Popper, A. (2006, January). Audition in sciaenid fishes with different swim bladder‐inner ear configurations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(1), 439‐443. Rigg, D.P., S.C. Peverell, M. Hearndon, & J.E. Seymour. (2009). Do elasmobranch reactions to magnetic fields in water show promise for bycatch mitigation? Marine and Freshwater Research, 60(9), 942‐948. Rodriguez, S., Santiago, A. R. T. & Shenker, G. (2001). A Public‐Access GIS‐Based Model of Potential Species Habitat Distribution for the Santa Barbara Channel and the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. (Master's group project). University of California, Santa Barbara. Rooney, J., Wessel, P., Hoeke, R., Weiss, J., Baker, J., Parrish, F., Vroom, P. (2008). Geology and geomorphology of coral reefs in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In B. M. Riegl and R. E. Dodge (Eds.), Coral Reefs of the USA. Coral Reefs of the World (Vol. 1, pp. 515‐567). Springer. Rosen, G. & Lotufo, G.R. (2007a). Toxicity of explosive compounds in the marine mussel, Mytillus galloprovicialis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 68, 228‐236. Rosen, G. & Lotufo, G.R. (2007b). Bioaccumulation of explosive compounds in the marine mussel, Mytilus galloprovicialis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 68, 237‐245. Rosen, G. & Lotufo, G.R. (2010). Fate and effects of composition B in multispecies marine exposures. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 29(6), 1330‐1337 Ruggerone, G.T., S.E. Goodman, & R. Miner. (2008). Behavioral response and survival of juvenile coho salmon to pile driving sounds. Natural Resources Consultants, Inc., and Robert Miner Dynamic Testing, Inc. Ruwa, R. K. (1996). Intertidal wetlands. In T. R. McClanahan and T. P. Young (Eds.), East African Ecosystems and Their Conservation (pp. 101‐130). New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Seaman, W. (2007). Artificial habitats and the restoration of degraded marine ecosystems and fisheries. Hydrobiologia, 580(1), 143‐155. doi: 10.1007/s10750‐006‐0457‐9. Simpson, S.D., A.N. Radford, E.J. Tickle, M.G. Meekan, & A. Jeffs. (2011). Adaptive Avoidance of Reef Noise. PLoS ONE, 6(2). Singh, B. & Sharma, N. (2008). Mechanistic implications of plastic degradation. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 93(3), 561‐584. Sisneros, J.A. & Bass, A.H. (2003). Seasonal plasticity of peripheral auditory frequency sensitivity. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23( ), 1049‐1058. Slabbekoorn, H., N. Bouton, I. van Opzeeland, A. Coers, C. ten Cate, & A.N. Popper. (2010). A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. [Review]. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(7). 7‐17 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Smith, M.E., A.B. Coffin, D.L. Miller, & A.N. Popper. (2006). Anatomical and functional recovery of the goldfish (Carassius auratus) ear following noise exposure. Journal of Experimental Biology, 209, 4193‐4202. Spalding, M., Taylor, M., Ravilious, C., Short, F. & Green, E. (2003). Global overview: The distribution and status of seagrasses. In E. P. Green and F. T. Short (Eds.), World Atlas of Seagrasses (pp. 5‐26). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Spalding, M. D., Fox, H. E., Allen, G. R., Davidson, N., Ferdaña, Z. A., Finlayson, M., Roberston, J. (2007). Marine ecoregions of the world: A bioregionalisation of coastal and shelf areas. Bioscience, 57(7), 573‐583. Speybroeck, J., Bonte, D., Courtens, W., Gheskiere, T., Grootaert, P., Maelfait, J. P., et al. (2008). The Belgian sandy beach ecosystem: a review. Marine Ecology‐an Evolutionary Perspective, 29(Supplement 1), 171‐185. Sprague, M.W. & Luczkovich, J.J. (2004). Measurement of an individual silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura sound pressure level in a field recording. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(5), 3186‐3191. Stanley, J., C. Radford, & A. Jeffs. (2010). Induction of settlement in crab megalopae by ambient underwater reef sound. [Journal Article]. Behavioral Ecology, 21(1), 113‐120. Stephens, M.P., D.C. Kadko, C.R. Smith, & M. Latasa. (1997). Chlorophyll‐a and pheopigments as tracers of labile organic carbon at the central equatorial Pacific seafloor. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 61(21): 4605‐4619. Teuten, E.L., S.J. Rowland, T.S. Galloway, & R.C. Thompson. (2007). Potential for plastics to transport hydrophobic contaminants. Environmental Science and Technology, 41(22), 7759‐7764 Tomczak, M. & Godfrey, J. S. (2003a). The Atlantic Ocean. In Regional Oceanography: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Daya Publishing House. Retrieved from http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/pdfversion.html. Tomczak, M. & Godfrey, J. S. (2003b). The Pacific Ocean. In Regional Oceanography: An Introduction. (2nd ed.). Daya Publishing House. Retrieved from http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/pdfversion.html. Tomczak, M. & Godfrey, J. S. (2003c). The Pacific Ocean. In Regional Oceanography: An Introduction. (2nd ed.). Daya Publishing House. Retrieved from http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/regoc/pdfversion.html. Uchupi, E. & Emery, K. O. (1963). The continental slope between San Francisco, California and Cedros Island, Mexico. Deep‐Sea Research, 10, 397‐447. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2009a). Global Open Oceans and Deep Seabed (GOODS) ‐ Biogeographic Classification. (IOC Technical Series, 84, pp. 95). Paris, France: UNESCO‐IOC. 7‐18 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2009b). Global Open Oceans and Deep Seabed (GOODS) ‐ Biogeographic Classification (pp. 82). Paris, France: [IOC] Intergovernmental Oceanographic Comission. University of Hawaii. (2010). History of the Hawaii State FADs Program. U.S. Department of the Army. (1999). Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Life Cycle Environmental Assessment (LCEA) for the HELLFIRE Modular Missile System. U.S. Department of the Navy. (1996a). Draft environmental assessment of the use of selected Navy test sites for development tests and fleet training exercises of the MK‐ 46 and MK‐ 50 torpedoes. (CONFIDENTIAL) Program Executive Office, Antisubmarine Warfare Assault and Special Mission Programs. U.S. Department of the Navy. (1996b). Environmental assessment of the use of selected Navy test sites for development tests and fleet training exercises of the MK‐48 torpedoes. (CONFIDENTIAL) Program Executive Office Undersea Warfare, Program Manager for Undersea Weapons. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2000). Noise Blast Test Results Aboard the USS Cole Gun Blast Transmission into Water Test with a 5‐Inch/54 Caliber Naval Gun (Standard Ordnance). U.S. Department of the Navy. (2002). Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Point Mugu Sea Range. (pp. 712) Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2004). Overseas environmental assessment for use of glacial acetic acid (GAA) and triethlyphosphate (TEP) as chemical warfare agent stimulants during testing of the joint services lightweight stand‐off chemical agent detector (JSLSCAD). U.S. Department of the Navy. (2005a). Marine Resources Assessment for the Hawaiian Islands Operating Area Final Report Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Ed.). (pp. 578) Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2005b). Biological Assessment for Sinking Exercises (SINKEXs) in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. (pp. 157). Newport, VA: U. S. Department of the Navy, Commander Fleet Forces Command. Prepared by Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2007). Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for the Hawaii Range Complex. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008a). Marine Resources Assessment for the Southern California and Point Mugu Operating Areas Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Ed.), Final Report. (pp. 784). U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008b). Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for the Southern California Range Complex. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008c). Hawaii Range Complex, Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS). Hawaii Range Complex. Prepared by Pacific Missile Range Facility. 7‐19 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008d). Southern California Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement/Oversea Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 of 2: Chapters 4‐10 and Appendices A‐F. (Vol. 2, pp. 926). U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008e). Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) for the shock trial of the MESA VERDE (LPD 19). Washington, DC: Department of the Navy. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010a). Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for the Silver Strand Training Complex. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010b). Jacksonville (JAX) Operating Area (OPAREA) Undersea Warfare Trainng Range (USWTR) Bottom Mapping and Habitat Characterization, Florida. Final Cruise Report. Norfolk, Virginia: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011). Silver Strand Training Complex Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]. Prepared by U.S. Pacific Fleet. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012a, May). Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS/OEIS). U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012b). Determination of Acoustic Effects on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles for the Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement M. S. M. Team (Ed.). (pp. 100). Newport Rhode Island: Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012c). Ecosystem Technical Report for the Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Draft Environmental Impact Statement. (pp. 69) Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic Division. Prepared by Tetra Tech Inc. Available from http://www.ttcollab.com/teammarine/Task%20Orders/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fte
ammarine%2fTask%20Orders%2fTO46%20Atlantic%20EIS%2fDeliverables%2fTask_7%2fDEIS%2
0v%2e3&FolderCTID=&View=%7b8D69BFE4‐ED90‐4BA7‐BE65‐F742CA308804%7d U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Ocean Regulatory Programs August 1999 SINKEX Letter Agreement between EPA and the Navy (Vol. 2010). Valiela, I. (1995). Marine Ecological Processes (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer‐Verlag. Vermeij, M.J.A., K.L. Marhaver, C.M. Huijbers, I. Nagelkerken, & S.D. Simpson. (2010). Coral Larvae Move toward Reef Sounds. PLoS ONE, 5(5), e10660. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010660. Vetter, E. W., Smith, C. R. & De Leo, F. C. (2010). Hawaiian hotspots: enhanced megafaunal abundance and diversity in submarine canyons on the oceanic islands of Hawaii. Marine Ecology 31(1), 183‐
199. doi: 10.1111/j.1439‐0485.2009.00351.x Wang, W.‐X. & Rainbow, P.S. (2008). Comparative approaches to understand metal bioaccumulation in aquatic animals. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology, 148(4), 315‐323 7‐20 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (1979). Fishery Management Plan for the Precisou Coral Fisheries (and Associated Non‐precious Corlals) of the Western Pacific Region. September. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (1981). Final Combined Fishery Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Analysis and Draft Regulations for the Spiny Lobster Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. May. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (1986a). Combined Fishery Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Impact Review for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. March. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (1986b). Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. July. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (2001). Final Fishery Management Plan for Coral Reef Ecosystems of theWestern Pacific Region. October. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (2009a). Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaii Archipelago. September. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (2009b). Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pacific Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. September. Whitmire, C. E. & Clarke, M. E. (2007). State of deep coral ecosystems of the U.S. Pacific coast: California to Washington. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner and G. Dorr (Eds.), The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States. (NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP‐3, pp. 109‐
154). Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Departement of Commerce and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Wilson, C. (2002, Last updated September 2002). Giant Kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera). [Web page] California Department of Fish and Game. Retrieved from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/response/kelp.pdf Wilson, M., R.T. Hanlon, P.L. Tyack, & P.T. Madsen. (2007). Intense ultrasonic clicks from echolocating toothed whales do not elicit anti‐predator responses or debilitate the squid Loligo pealeii. Biology Letters, 3, 225‐227 Witman, J. D. & Dayton, P. K. (2001). Rocky subtidal communities. In M. D. Bertness, S. D. Gaines and M. E. Hay (Eds.), Marine Community Ecology (pp. 339‐366). Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Wolanski, E., Richmond, R. H., Davis, G., Deleersnijder, E. & Leben, R. R. (2003). Eddies around Guam, an island in the Mariana Islands group. Continental Shelf Research, 23(10), 991‐1003. doi: 10.1016/s0278‐4343(03)00087‐6 Wright, D.G. (1982). A Discussion Paper on the Effects of Explosives on Fish and Marine Mammals in the Waters of the Northwest Territories Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. (pp. 1‐16). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Western Region Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 7‐21 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Wright, K.J., D.M. Higgs, A.J. Belanger, & J.M. Leis. (2005). Auditory and olfactory abilities of pre‐
settlement larvae and post‐settlement juveniles of a coral reef damselfish (Pisces: Pomacentridae). Marine Biology, 147, 1425‐1434. Wright, K.J., D.M. Higgs, A.J. Belanger, & J.M. Leis. (2007). Auditory and olfactory abilities of pre‐
settlement larvae and post‐settlement juveniles of a coral reef damselfish (Pisces: Pomacentridae). [Erratum to Mar Biol 147:1425–1434 DOI 10.1007/s00227‐005‐0028‐z]. Marine Biology, 150, 1049‐1050. Wyllie‐Echeverria, S. & Ackerman, J. D. (2003). The seagrasses of the Pacific coast of North America. In E. P. Green and F. T. Short (Eds.), World Atlas of Seagrasses (pp. 199‐206). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Yagla, J. & Stiegler, R. (2003). Gun Blast Noise Transmission Across the Air‐Sea Interface. Dahlgren, VA. Yelverton, J.T., D.R. Richmond, W. Hicks, K. Saunders,& E.R. Fletcher. (1975). The relationship between fish size and their response to underwater blast. (Defense Nuclear Agency Topical Report DNA 3677T, pp. 39 pp.). Washington, DC: Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Defense Nuclear Agency. Young, G.A. (1991). Concise methods for predicting the effects of underwater explosions on marine life (pp. 1‐12). Silver Spring: Naval Surface Warfare Center. Zelick, R., D. Mann, & A.N. Popper. (1999). Acoustic communication in fishes and frogs R. R. Fay and A. N. Popper (Eds.), Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians (pp. pp. 363‐411). New York: Springer‐Verlag.
7‐22 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment APPENDIX A
LIST OF FEDERALLY MANAGED SPECIES
A‐1 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
GROUNDFISH MANAGEMENT UNIT Olive rockfish (Sebastes serranoides) Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus) Pacific rattail (Coryphaenoides acrolepis) Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus) Petrale sole (Eopsetta jordani) Pink rockfish (Sebastes eos) Pinkrose rockfish (Sebastes simulator) Pygmy rockfish (Sebastes wilsoni) Quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger) Ratfish (Hydrolagus colliei) Redbanded rockfish (Sebastes babcocki) Redstripe rockfish (Sebastes proriger) Rex sole (Glyptocephalus zachirus) Rock sole (Lepidopsetta bilineata) Rosethorn rockfish (Sebastes helvomaculatus) Rosy rockfish (Sebastes rosaceus) Rougheye rockfish (Sebastes aleutianus) Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) Sand sole (Psettichthys melanostictus) Sharpchin rockfish (Sebastes zacentrus) Shortbelly rockfish (Sebastes jordani) Shortraker rockfish (Sebastes borealis Shortspine thornyhead (Sebastolobus alascanus Silvergray rockfish (Sebastes brevispinis) Soupfin shark (Galeorhinus zyopterus) Speckled rockfish (Sebastes ovalis) Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) Splitnose rockfish (Sebastes diploproa) Squarespot rockfish (Sebastes hopkinsi) Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) Starry rockfish (Sebastes constellatus) Stripetail rockfish (Sebastes saxicola) Swordspine rockfish (Sebastes ensifer) Tiger rockfish (Sebastes nigrocinctus) Treefish (Sebastes serriceps) Vermilion rockfish (Sebastes miniatus) Widow rockfish (Sebastes entomelas) Yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberimus) Yellowmouth rockfish (Sebastes reedi) Yellowtail rockfish (Sebastes flavidus) Arrowtooth flounder (Atheresthes stomias) Aurora rockfish (Sebastes aurora) Bank rockfish (Sebastes. rufus) Big skate (Raja binoculata) Black and yellow rockfish (Sebastes chrysomelas) Black rockfish (Sebastes melanops) Blackgill rockfish (Sebastes melanostomus) Blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus) Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) Bronzespotted rockfish (Sebastes gilli) Brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus) Butter sole (Isopsetta isolepis) Cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus) Calico rockfish (Sebastes dallii) California scorpionfish (Scorpaena gutatta) California skate (Raja inornata) Canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) Chameleon rockfish (Sebastes phillipsi) Chilipepper (Sebastes goodei) China rockfish (Sebastes nebulosus) Copper rockfish (Sebastes caurinus) Cowcod (Sebastes levis) Curlfin sole (Pleuronichthys decurrens) Darkblotched rockfish (Sebastes crameri) Dover sole (Microstomus pacificus) Dusky rockfish (Sebastes ciliates) Dwarf‐red rockfish (Sebastes rufinanus) English sole (Parophrys vetulus) Finescale codling (Antimora microlepis) Flag rockfish (Sebastes rubrivinctus) Flathead sole (Hippoglossoides elassodon) Freckled rockfish (Sebastes lentiginosus) Gopher rockfish (Sebastes carnatus) Grass rockfish (Sebastes rastrelliger) Greenblotched rockfish (Sebastes rosenblatti) Greenspotted rockfish (Sebastes chlorostictus) Greenstriped rockfish (Sebastes elongates) Halfbanded rockfish (Sebastes semicinctus) Harlequin rockfish (Sebastes variegates) Honeycomb rockfish (Sebastes umbrosus) Kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus) Kelp rockfish (Sebastes atrovirens) Leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata) Lingcod (Ophiodon elongates) Longnose skate (Raja rhina) Longspine thornyhead (Sebastolobus altivelis) Mexican rockfish (Sebastes macdonaldi) COASTAL PELAGIC SPECIES MANAGEMENT UNIT Jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus) Krill (Euphausiids) Market squid (Loligo opalescens) Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) A‐2 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus) Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES MANAGEMENT UNIT Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) Blue shark (Prionace glauca) Thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) Dorado or dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) Northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) North Pacific albacore (Thunnus alalunga) Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax) Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) CALIFORNIA NEARSHORE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN SPECIES MANAGEMENT UNIT Black‐and‐yellow rockfish (Sebastes chrysomelas) Black rockfish (Sebastes melanops) Blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus) Brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus) Cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus) Calico rockfish (Sebastes dallii) California scorpionfish (Scorpena guttatta) California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) China rockfish (Sebastes nebulosus) Copper rockfish (Sebastes caurinus) Gopher rockfish (Sebastes carnatus) Grass rockfish (Sebastes rastrelliger) Kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus) Kelp rockfish (Sebastes atrovirens) Monkeyface prickleback (Cebidichthys violaceus) Olive rockfish (Sebastes serranoides) Quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger Rock greenling (Hexagrammos lagocephalus) Treefish (Sebastes serriceps)
A‐3 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
BOTTOMFISH MANAGEMENT UNIT SPECIES Blue‐lined surgeon (Acanthurus nigroris) Bluespine unicornfish (Naso unicornus) Brick soldierfish (Myripristis amaena) Bridled triggerfish (Sufflamen fraenatum) Brown surgeonfish (Acanthurus nigrofuscus) Butterflyfish (Chaetodon auriga) Cigar wrasse (Cheilio inermis) Convict tang (Acanthurus triostegus) Crown squirrelfish (Sargocentron diadema) Doublebar goatfish (Parupeneus bifasciatus) Dragon eel (Enchelycore pardalis) Eye‐striped surgeonfish (Acanthurus dussumieri) False mullet (Neomyxus leuciscus) Featherduster worm (Sabellidae) File‐lined squirrelfish (Sargocentron microstoma) Galapagos shark (Carcharhinus galapagensis) Giant moray eel (Gymnothorax javanicus) Glasseye (Heteropriacanthus cruentatus) Gray unicornfish (Naso caesius) Great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) Green snails turban shells (Turbo spp.) Grey reef shark (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) Hawaiian flag‐tail (Kuhlia sandvicensis) Hawaiian squirrelfish (Sargocentron xantherythrum) Heller’s barracuda (Sphyraena helleri) Mackerel scad (Decapterus macarellus) Moorish idol (Zanclus cornutus) Multi‐barred goatfish (Parupeneus multifaciatus) Octopus (Octopus cyanea) Octopus (Octopus ornatus) Orange goatfish (Mulloidichthys pfleugeri) Orangespine unicornfish (Naso lituratus) Orange‐spot surgeonfish (Acanthurus olivaceus) Parrotfish (Scarus spp.) Pearly soldierfish (Myripristis kuntee) Peppered squirrelfish (Sargocentron punctatissimum) Picassofish (Rhinecanthus aculeatus) Pinktail triggerfish (Melichthys vidua) Raccoon butterflyfish (Chaetodon lunula) Razor wrasse (Xyrichtys pavo) Red ribbon wrasse (Thalassoma quinquevittatum) Ringtail surgeonfish (Acanthurus blochii) Ring‐tailed wrasse (Oxycheilinus unifasciatus) Rockmover wrasse (Novaculichthys taeniourus) Rudderfish (Kyphosus biggibus) Rudderfish (Kyphosus cinerascens) Rudderfish (Kyphosus vaigiensis) Alfonsin (Beryx splendens ) Amberjack (Seriola dumerili) Armorhead (Pseudopentaceros wheeleri) Black jack (Caranx lugubris) Blue stripe snapper (Lutjanus kasmira) Giant trevally (Caranx ignoblis) Gray jobfish (Aprion virescens) Hawaiian grouper (Epinephelus quernus) Longtail snapper (Etelis coruscans) Pink snapper (Pristipomoides filamentosus) Pink snapper (Pristipomoides sieboldii) Raftfish (Hyperoglyphe japonica) Silver jaw jobfish (Aphareus rutilansi) Squirrelfish snapper (Etelis carbunculus) Thick lipped trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex) Yellow‐barred snapper (Pristipomoides zonatus) Yellowtail snapper (Pristipomoides auricilla) CRUSTACEANS MANAGEMENT UNIT SPECIES Deepwater shrimp (Heterocarpus spp.) Kona crab (Ranina ranina) Slipper lobster (Family Scyllaridae) Spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus) Spiny lobster (Panulirus marginatus) PRECIOUS CORALS MANAGEMENT UNIT SPECIES Black coral (Antipathes dichotoma) Black coral (Antipathes grandis) Black coral (Antipathes ulex) Pink coral (Corallium laauense) Pink coral (Corallium regale) Pink coral (Corallium secundum) Gold coral (Gerardia spp ) Bamboo coral (Lepidisis olapa) Gold coral (Narella spp.) CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT UNITS SPECIES, CURRENTLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA Banded goatfish (Parupeneus spp.) Bandtail goatfish (Upeneus arge) Bigeye (Priacanthus hamrur) Bigeye scad (Selar crumenophthalmus) Bigscale soldierfish (Myripristis berndti) Black tongue unicornfish (Naso hexacanthus) Black triggerfish (Melichthys niger) Blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus) Blue‐lined squirrelfish (Sargocentron tiere) A‐4 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Saber or long jaw squirrelfish (Sargocentron spiniferum) Saddleback butterflyfish (Chaetodon ephippium) Saddleback hogfish (Bodianus bilunulatus) Side‐spot goatfish (Parupeneus pleurostigma) Spotfin squirrelfish (Neoniphon spp.) Spotted unicornfish (Naso brevirostris) Stareye parrotfish (Calotomus carolinus) Striped bristletooth (Ctenochaetus striatus) Stripped mullet (Mugil cephalus) Sunset wrasse (Thalassoma lutescens) Surge wrasse (Thalassoma purpureum) Threadfin (Polydactylus sexfilis) Undulated moray eel (Gymnothorax undulates) Whitebar surgeonfish (Acanthurus leucopareius) Whitecheek surgeonfish (Acanthurus nigricans) Whitemargin unicornfish (Naso annulatus) White‐spotted surgeonfish (Acanthurus guttatus) Whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus) Yellow goatfish (Mulloidichthys spp.) Yellow tang (Zebrasoma flavescens) Yellow‐eyed surgeonfish (Ctenochaetus strigosus) Yellowfin goatfish (Mulloidichthys vanicolensis) Yellowfin soldierfish (Myripristis chryseres) Yellowfin surgeonfish (Acanthurus xanthopterus) Yellowmargin moray eel (Gymnothorax flavimarginatus) Yellowsaddle goatfish (Parupeneus cyclostomas) Yellowstripe goatfish (Mulloidichthys flavolineatus) CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT UNITS SPECIES, POTENTIALLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA Flounders and soles (Soleidae) Flounders and soles (Pleurnectidae) Frogfishes (Antennariidae) Goatfishes (Those species not listed as CHCRT)
Mullidae Gobies (Gobiidae) Groupers, seabass (Those species not listed as CHCRT or in BMUS) Serrandiae Hawkfishes (Those species not listed as CHCRT)
Cirrhitidae Herrings (Clupeidae) Hydroid corals (Solanderidae) Hydrozoans and Bryzoans Jacks and scads (Those species not listed as CHCRT or in BMUS) Carangidae Lace corals (Stylasteridae) Live rock Lobsters, shrimps, mantis shrimps, true crabs, and hermit crabs (Those species not listed as CMUS)
Crustaceans Mollusca (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Moorish Idols (Zanclidae) Mushroom corals (Fungiidae) Octopi (Cephalopods) Other clams (Other Bivalves) Pipefishes and seahorses (Syngnathidae) Puffer fishes and porcupine fishes (Tetradontidae) Rays and skates (Dasyatididae) Rays and skates (Myliobatidae) Remoras (Echeneidae) Rudderfishes (Those species not listed as CHCRT)
Kyphosidae Sandperches (Pinguipedidae) Scorpionfishes, lionfishes (Scorpaenidae) Sea cucumbers and sea urchins (Echinoderms) Sea slugs (Opistobranchs) Sea snails (Gastropoda) Sea squirts (Tunicates) Seaweed (Algae) Segmented worms (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Annelids Sharks (Sphyrnidae) Sharks (Those species not listed as CHCRT)
Carcharhinidae Small and large coral polyps (Fungiidae) Snappers (Those species not listed as CHCRT or in BMUS) Lutjanidae Soft corals and gorgonians (Fungiidae) Soft zoanthid corals (Zoanthinaria) Solderfishes and squirrelfishes (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Holocentridae Ahermatypic corals (Azooxanthellates) Anchovies (Engraulidae) Anemones (Actinaria) Angelfishes (Pomacanthidae) Barracudas (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Black lipped pearl oyster (Pinctada margaritifera) Blennies (Blenniidae) Butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae) Cardinalfishes (Apogonidae) Coral crouchers (Caracanthidae) Cornetfish (Fistularia commersoni) Damselfishes (Pomacentridae) Eels (Those species not listed as CHCRT)
Muraenidae Eels (Those species not listed as CHCRT)
Congridae Eels (Those species not listed as CHCRT)
Ophichthidae Flounders and soles (Bothidae) A‐5 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Sponges (Porifera) Surgeonfishes (Those species not listed as CHCRT)
Acanthuridae Tilefishes (Malacanthidae) Trigger fishes (Balistidae) Trumpetfish (Aulostomus chinensis) Trunkfishes (Ostraciidae) All other coral reef ecosystem management unit species that are marine plants, invertebrates, and fishes that are not listed in the preceding tables or are not bottomfish management unit species, crustacean management unit species, Pacific pelagic management unit species, precious coral or seamount groundfish. PELAGIC MANAGEMENT UNITS SPECIES Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus) BigeyeTtuna (Thunnus obesus) Black marlin (Makaira indica) Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) Blue shark (Prionace glauca) Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus) Thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) Diamondback squid (Thysanoteuthis rhombus) Dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor) Frigate and bullet tunas (Auxis thazard, A. rochei) Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis) Longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus) Mackerel (Scomber spp.) Mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus, C. equiselas) Neon flying squid (Ommastrephes bartamii) Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) Ono (Acanthocybium solandri) Opah (Lampris spp.) Pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus) Pomfret (family Bramidae) Purple flying squid (Sthenoteuthis oualaniensis) Sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) Salmon shark (Lamna ditropis) Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) Slender tunas (Allothunnus fallai) Spearfish (Tetrapturus spp.) Striped Marlin (Tetrapurus audax) Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares)
A‐6 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment APPENDIX B
PRIMARY HABITAT TYPES DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
B‐1 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment B PRIMARY HABITAT TYPES DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL FISH
HABITAT
B.1 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT DESIGNATIONS BY PRIMARY HABITAT TYPE FOR EACH
SPECIES/MANAGEMENT UNIT AND LIFE STAGE
Table B.1‐1: Pacific Fishery Management Council Groundfish Management Unit PFMC Groundfish Management Unit
NonRocky
Shelf
Neritic
Curlfin Sole
A, SA
Dover Sole
Group/Species
Estuarine
Rocky
Shelf
Continental
Slope/Basin
Oceanic
E
A, SA
E
A, SA, J
L, E
A, SA, J
L, E
A*, SA, J*
L*, E
A*
A, J
L, E
A, SA
L, E
A, SA
E
A, SA
L, E
A*, SA*,
J*, E*
L
A*, SA*, J*, E*
A, SA, J
L, E
A*, SA, J
L, E
Canyon
Flatfish
English Sole
A*, SA, J*,
L*, E
A*, SA, J*
Petrale Sole
Rex Sole
A
Rock Sole
A*, SA*,
J*, E*
Sand Sole
Pacific Sanddab
J, L, E
L, E
Rockfish
Aurora Rockfish
A, MA, LJ
Bank Rockfish
Black Rockfish
A*, SJ*
Black-and-yellow Rockfish
Blackgill Rockfish
Blue Rockfish
Bocaccio
SJ*, L
A, J
A, J
LJ*
LJ*
A, MA, LJ
A, J
L*
LJ
SJ, L
A*, MA,
LJ*
LJ*
SJ*,L
A*, LJ*
A*, LJ*
SJ*, L
Bronzespotted Rockfish
A*
A, LJ
LJ*
S, LJ
A*, LJ*
A
Brown Rockfish
A*, MA,
J*, P
A*, MA,
J*, P
Calico Rockfish
A, J
A, J
Canary Rockfish
A, J
A, P
A, P
SJ*, L
A, LJ, P
A, LJ, P
China Rockfish
A, J, P
L
A*, LJ*
SJ*, P
A*, LJ*,
SJ*, P
A, LJ, P
SJ*, L
Chilipepper
Copper Rockfish
A, J
A*, SJ*
A*, MA,
LJ*, SJ*, P
L
B‐2 SJ*, L
Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B1‐1: Pacific Fishery Management Council Groundfish Management Unit (continued) PFMC Groundfish Management Unit
Group/Species
Estuarine
Rocky
Shelf
NonRocky
Shelf
Neritic
A, J
J
L
A, MA, LJ,
P
A, MA, LJ,
P
Canyon
Continental
Slope/Basin
Oceanic
A, MA, P
SJ, L
Rockfish (continued)
Cowcod
Darkblotched Rockfish
Flag Rockfish
A, P
Gopher Rockfish
A*, MA,
J*, P
Grass Rockfish
A*, J*, P
A*, A, J*,
P
Greenblotched Rockfish
A, J, P
A, J, P
Greenspotted Rockfish
A, J, P
A, J, P
Greenstriped Rockfish
A, P
A, P
Honeycomb Rockfish
A, J, P
Kelp Rockfish
Mexican Rockfish
Olive Rockfish
Pacific Ocean Perch
Pink Rockfish
SJ*
SJ*
A
L
A*, J*, P
L
A*, P
A, LJ
A, LJ
A
A
A
A
A
Redbanded Rockfish
Redstripe Rockfish
A, P
Rosethorn Rockfish
A, P
Rosy Rockfish
A, P
J
A*, LJ*, P
A
A, J, P
SJ
A
A, P
A, P
A, P
A, P
A, J, P
Rougheye Rockfish
A
A
A
Sharpchin Rockfish
A, P
A, P
A, P
Shortbelly Rockfish
A*, P
A*, P
Silverygray Rockfish
A*
A*
Speckled Rockfish
SJ, L
A, J, P
Splitnose Rockfish
A*, P
A*
A, P
A, J*, P
Squarespot Rockfish
A, P
Starry Rockfish
A, P
Stripetail Rockfish
A
Treefish
A
A, P
A, P
A, P
A, P
A, P
Tiger Rockfish
A*, P
A, P
A
B‐3 L
Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B1‐1: Pacific Fishery Management Council Groundfish Management Unit (continued) PFMC Groundfish Management Unit
Group/Species
Estuarine
Rocky
Shelf
NonRocky
Shelf
A, J*
J*
A, MA,
LJ,P
A, MA, LJ,
P
Neritic
Canyon
Continental
Slope/Basin
A
A
A, MA, LJ,
P
A, MA, P
Oceanic
Rockfish (continued)
Vermilion Rockfish
Widow Rockfish
SJ*, L
Yelloweye Rockfish
A, P
Yellowtail Rockfish
A, MA, LJ,
P
A, MA, LJ,
P
SJ*
A, SA, J
A, SA, J
E
SJ*, L
A, P
A, MA, P
SJ*
A, SA, J
L, E
A, SA
L, E
Scorpionfish
California Scorpionfish
E
Thornyhead
Longspine Thornyhead
Shortspine Thornyhead
A
Roundfish
A, SA, LJ,
SJ*, L, E
A, SA, LJ,
E
SJ*, L
SJ*, L
Kelp Greenling
A*, SA,
LJ*, SJ*,
L, E
A*, SA,
LJ*, E
SJ*, L
SJ*, L
Lingcod
A*, SA,
LJ*, SJ*,
L, E
A*, SA,
LJ*, E
Pacific Cod
A, SA, J,
L, E
Pacific Hake (Whiting)
A, SA, J,
L, E
Cabezon
A*, LJ*
SJ*, L
A*
A, SA, J,
E
A, SA,
J, L
A, SA, E
A, SA,
J, L, E
Pacific Flatnose
Sablefish
A, SA, L,
E
A
Pacific Grenadier
A, SA, J
SJ
A
A, LJ
SJ, L
A, LJ
A
A, SA, J
L
A, SA
SJ, L, E
Skates/Sharks/Chimeras
Big Skate
California Skate
A, MA, J,
E
Longnose Skate
Leopard Shark
A, MA, J,
P
A, MA, J,
P
A, MA, J,
E
A, MA
A, MA, J,
E
A, MA, J, E
A, MA, J,
E
A, MA, J, E
A, MA, J,
P
B‐4 A, MA,
J, P
A, SA, J, L
Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B1‐1: Pacific Fishery Management Council Groundfish Management Unit (continued) PFMC Groundfish Management Unit
Group/Species
Estuarine
Rocky
Shelf
NonRocky
Shelf
Neritic
Canyon
Continental
Slope/Basin
Oceanic
Skates/Sharks/Chimeras (continued)
Soupfin Shark
A, MA, J,
P
A, MA, J
A, MA, J,
P
A, MA,
J, P
A, MA, J
Spiny Dogfish
A, LJ, SJ,
P
A, MA, LJ
A, LJ, P
A, LJ,
SJ
A
Spotted Ratfish
A, MA, J
A, MA, J,
E
A, MA, J,
E
A, MA, J
A, MA
A
A, MA, J, E
Notes: A = Adults; SA = Spawning Adults; MA = Mating Adults; LJ = Large Juveniles; SJ = Small Juveniles; J = Juveniles; L = Larvae; E =
Eggs; P = Parturition; * = Associated with macrophytes, algae, or seagrass; PFMC = Pacific Fishery Management Council
Source: PFMC 2006
Table B.1‐2: Pacific Fishery Management Council Coastal Pelagic Species Management Unit PFMC Coastal Pelagic Species Management Unit
Group/Species
Coastal epipelagic
Krill
E, L, J, A
Northern anchovy
E, L, J, A
Mackerels
E, L, J, A
Sardine
E, L, J, A
Squid
Coastal mesopelagic
Coastal benthic
L, J, A
E
Notes: A = Adults, J = Juveniles, L = Larvae, E = Eggs
Source: PFMC 2003, PFMC 2005
Table B.1‐3: Pacific Fishery Management Council Highly Migratory Species Management Unit PFMC Highly Migratory Species Management Unit
Group/Species
Coastal
epi-pelagic
Coastal
meso-pelagic
Oceanic epi-pelagic
Oceanic
meso-pelagic
Sharks
Blue Shark
Thresher Sharks
N, EJ, LJ, SA, A
LJ, SA, A
LJ, SA, A
LJ, SA, A
LJ, SA, A
Tunas
Albacore
J, A
Bigeye Tuna
J, A
Northern Bluefin
J
Skipjack
A
Yellowfin
J
B‐5 J, A
Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B1‐3: Pacific Fishery Management Council Highly Migratory Species Management Unit (continued) PFMC Highly Migratory Species Management Unit
Group/Species
Coastal
epi-pelagic
Coastal
meso-pelagic
Oceanic epi-pelagic
Oceanic
meso-pelagic
Billfish
Striped Marlin
A
Swordfish
Broadbill Swordfish
J, A
J, A
Dolphinfish
Dorado
J, SA, A
Source: PFMC 2006, PFMC 2007; Notes: A = Adults, SA = Sub-Adults, LJ = Late Juveniles, N= Neonate, EJ = Early Juveniles, J =
Juveniles, L = Larvae, E = Eggs
B‐6 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B.1‐4: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Bottomfish Management Unit WPRFMC Bottomfish Management Unit
Ma
La
Es
SB
Ss
Cr/Hs
Pr
J
A,J
Sz
DST
Pe
Comments
A
A,J,L,E
Adult depth of 0 to 250 m
A
A,J,L,E
Adult depth of 12 to 354 m
A
E,L
Adult depth of 0 to 265 m
E,L
Adult depth of 80 m
A
E,L
Adult depth of 3 to 180 m
A
E,L
Adult depth of 18 to 183 m
E,L
Adult depth of 20 to 380 m
A
E,L
Adult depth of 164 to 293 m
A
E,L
Juvenile depth of 65 to 100
m; Adult depth of 100 to 200
m
Shallow-water Species Complex (0 to 100 m)
Amberjack (Seriola dumerili)
Black jack (Caranx lugubris)
Blue stripe snapper (Lutjanus kasmira)
A
Giant trevally (Caranx ignoblis)
J
J
Gray jobfish (Aprion virescens)
A
Thicklip trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex)
A
A,J
J
J
A
J
A,J
J
A,J
A
A
A,J
Deep-water Species Complex (100 to 400 m)
Hawaiian grouper (Epinephelus quernus)
J
Longtail snapper (Etelis coruscans)
Pink snapper (Pristipomoides filamentosus)
A
J
Pink snapper (Pristipomoides sieboldii)
Silver jaw jobfish (Aphareus rutilans)
A
Squirrelfish snapper (Etelis carbunculus)
A
A
E,L
Adult depth of 180 to 360 m
A
E,L
Adult depth of 6 to 100 m
A
E,L
Adult depth of 90 to 350 m
Yellow-barred snapper (Pristipomoides zonatus)
A
E.L
Adult depth of 100 to 200 m
Yellowtail snapper (Pristipomoides auricilla)
A
E,L
Adult depth of 180 to 270 m
Notes: Habitat: Mangrove (Ma), Lagoon (La), Estuarine (Es), Seagrass Beds (SB), Soft Substrate (Ss), Coral Reef/Hard Substrate (Cr/Hs), Patch Reefs (Pr), Surge Zone (Sz),
Deep-slope Terraces (DST), Pelagic/Open Ocean (Pe). Life History Stage: Egg (E), Larvae (L), Juvenile (J), Adult (A); WPRFMC = Western Pacific Fishery Management Council
Source: WPRFMC 1998, 2001a
B‐7 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B.1‐5: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Crustacean Management Unit WPRFMC Crustacean Management Unit
Ma
La
Es
SB
Ss
Cr/Hs
Pr
Sz
DST
Pe
Comments
Spiny and Slipper Lobster Complex
Chinese slipper lobster (Parribacus antarticus)
A
Hawaiian spiny lobster (Panulirus marginatus)
All
A, J
Ridgeback slipper lobster (Scyllarides haani)
All
Depth Distribution: 0 to 20 m
All
All
L
A
Spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus, Panulirus sp.)
All
A,J
All
Depth Distribution: 9 to 183
Depth Distribution: 10 to 135 m
All
All
L
Depth Distribution: 9 to 183 m
Kona Crab
Kona crab (Ranina ranina)
A
Adult depth of 24 to 115 m
Notes: Habitat: Mangrove (Ma), Lagoon (La), Estuarine (Es), Seagrass Beds (SB), Soft Substrate (Ss), Coral Reef/Hard Substrate (Cr/Hs), Patch Reefs (Pr), Surge Zone (Sz),
Deep-slope Terraces (DST), Pelagic/Open Ocean (Pe). Life History Stage: Egg (E), Larvae (L), Juvenile (J), Adult (A), Spawners (S)
Source: WPRFMC 1998, 2001a
Table B.1‐6: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Crustacean Management Unit WPRFMC Crustacean Management Unit
Ma
La
Es
SB
Ss
Cr/Hs
Pr
Sz
DST
Pe
Comments
Spiny and Slipper Lobster Complex
Chinese slipper lobster (Parribacus antarticus)
Hawaiian spiny lobster (Panulirus marginatus)
A
All
A, J
Ridgeback slipper lobster (Scyllarides haani)
Spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus, Panulirus sp.)
All
Depth Distribution: 0 to 20 m
All
All
L
A
All
A,J
All
Depth Distribution: 9 to 183
Depth Distribution: 10 to 135 m
All
All
L
Depth Distribution: 9 to 183 m
Kona Crab
Kona crab (Ranina ranina)
A
Adult depth of 24 to 115 m
Source: WPRFMC 1998, 2001a
Notes: Habitat: Mangrove (Ma), Lagoon (La), Estuarine (Es), Seagrass Beds (SB), Soft Substrate (Ss), Coral Reef/Hard Substrate (Cr/Hs), Patch Reefs (Pr), Surge Zone (Sz),
Deep-slope Terraces (DST), Pelagic/Open Ocean (Pe). Life History Stage: Egg (E), Larvae (L), Juvenile (J), Adult (A), Spawners (S)
B‐8 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B.1‐7: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Precious Corals Management Unit WPRFMC Precious Corals Management Unit
Ma
La
Es
SB
Ss
Hs
Black coral (Antipathes dichomata)
A,J,S
Fern black coral (Antipathes ulex)
Pine black coral (Antipathes grandis)
Pr
Sz
DST
Pe
Comments
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 30 to 110 m
A,J,S
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 40 to 100 m
A,J,S
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 45 to 110 m
Angel skin coral (Corallium secundum)
A,J,S
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 350 to 475 m
Bamboo coral (Lepidisis olapa)
A,J,S
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 300 to 400 m
Gold coral (Callogoria gilberti)
A,J,S
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 300 to 1,500 m
Gold coral (Narella sp.)
A,J,S
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 300 to 1,500 m
Gold coral (Calyprophora spp.)
A,J,S
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 300 to 1,500 m
Gold coral (Acanella sp.)
A,J,S
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 300 to 1,500 m
Hawaiian gold coral (Geraddia sp.)
A,J,S
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 300 to 400 m
Midway deepsea coral (Corallium sp. nov)
A,J,S
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 300 to 1,500 m
Pink coral (Corallium laauense)
A,J,S
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 350 to 1,500 m
Red coral (Corallium regale)
A,J,S
A,J,S
A,J,S
E,L
Depth Distribution: 380 to 410 m
Shallow-water Species Assemblage (18 to 91 m)
Deep-water Species Assemblage (274 to 1,372 m)
Notes: Habitat: Mangrove (Ma), Lagoon (La), Estuarine (Es), Seagrass Beds (SB), Soft Substrate (Ss), Hard Substrate (Hs), Patch Reefs (Pr), Surge Zone (Sz), Deep-slope
Terraces (DST), Pelagic/Open Ocean (Pe); WPRFMC = Western Pacific Fishery Management Council
Source: WPRFMC 1998
B‐9 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B.1‐8: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit WPRFMC Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit
Ma
La
Es
SB
Ss
Cr/Hs
Pr
Sz
DST
Pe
Acanthuridae (surgeonfishes)
Subfamily Acanthurinae (surgeonfishes)
Orange-spot surgeonfish (Acanthurus olivaceus)
Yellowfin surgeonfish (Acanthurus xanthopterus)
Convict tang (Acanthurus triostegus)
Eye-striped surgeonfish (Acanthurus dussumieri)
Blue-lined surgeon (Acanthurus nigroris)
Whitebar surgeonfish (Acanthurus leucopareius)
Whitecheek surgeonfish (Acanthurus nigricans)
White-spotted surgeonfish (Acanthurus guttatus)
Ringtail surgeonfish (Acanthurus blochii)
Brown surgeonfish (Acanthurus nigrofuscus)
Yellow-eyed surgeonfish (Ctenochaetus strigosus)
J
A, J, S
A, J, S
J
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J
A, J
E. L
Subfamily Nasianae (unicornfishes)
Bluespine unicornfish (Naso unicornus)
Orangespine unicornfish (Naso lituratus)
Blacktounge unicornfish (Naso hexacanthus)
Whitemargin unicornfish (Naso annulatus)
Spotted unicornfish (Naso brevirostris)
Gray unicornfish (Naso caesius)
J
A, J, S
J
A, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, S
All
Balistidae (trigger fish)
Pinktail triggerfish (Melichthys vidua)
Black triggerfish (M. niger)
Picassofish (Rhinecanthus aculeatus)
Wedged Picassofish (R. rectangulus)
Bridled triggerfish (Sufflamen fraenatus)
J
A, J, S
J
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, S
L
Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa
B‐10 A
Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B.1‐8: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit (continued) WPRFMC Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit
Carangidae (jacks)
Bigeye scad (Selar crumenophthalmus)
Mackerel scad (Decapterus macarellus)
Carcharhinidae
Grey reef shark (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos)
Galapagos shark (Carcharhinus galapagenis)
Blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus)
Whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus)
Ma
La
Es
SB
Ss
Cr/Hs
Pr
Sz
DST
Pe
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
J
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
All
E, L
A, J
A, J
A, J
J
A, J
A, J
A, J
A, J
A, J
A, J, S
A, J, S
J
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, S
E, L
A, J
A, J
A, J
Holocentridae (soldierfish/squirrelfish)
Bigscale soldierfish (Myripristis berndti)
Blotcheye soldierfish (Myripristis murdjan)
Bricksoldierfish (Myripristis amaena)
Yellowfin soldierfish (Myripristis chryseres)
Pearly soldierfish (Myripristis kuntee)
(Myripristis hexagona)
File-lined squirrelfish (Sargocentron microstoma)
Peppered squirrelfish (Sargocentron
punctatissimum)
Blue-lined squirrelfish (Sargocentron tiere)
Hawaiian squirrelfish (Sargocentron xantherythrum)
Saber squirrelfish (Sargocentron spiniferum)
Spotfin squirrelfish (Neoniphon spp.)
Kuhliidae (flagtails)
Hawaiian flagtail (Kuhlia sandvicensis)
A, J
B‐11 A
E, L
Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B.1‐8: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit (continued) WPRFMC Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit
Ma
Kyphosidae (rudderfishes)
Highfin chub (K. cinerascens)
Lowfin chub (K. vaigiensis)
Labridae (wrasses)
Saddleback hogfish (Bodianus bilunulatus)
Razor wrasse (Xyrichtys pavo)
Ring-tailed wrasse (Oxycheilinus unifasciatus)
La
Es
A, J, S
A, J, S
J
J
SB
A, J
A, J
Cigar wrasse (Cheilio inermis)
Ss
Cr/Hs
Pr
Sz
A, J
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
E, L
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
E, L
A, J
Surge wrasse (Thalassoma purpureum)
Redribbon wrasse (Thalassoma quinquevittatum)
A, J
Sunset wrasse (Thalassoma lutescens)
A, J
Rockmover wrasse (Novaculichthys taeniourus)
A, J
Mullidae (goatfish)
Yellow goatfish (Mulloidichthys spp.)
(Mulloidichthys pfleugeri)
(Mulloidichthys vanicolensis)
(Mulloidichthys flavolineatus)
Banded goatfish (Parupeneus spp.)
(Parupeneus bifasciatus)
(Parupeneus cyclostomas)
(Parupeneus pleurostigma)
(Parupeneus multifaciatus)
Bandtail goatfish (Upeneus arge)
A, J
J
J
A
B‐12 A, J
DST
Pe
All
E, L
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J
A, J
A, J
A, J, S
E, L
E, L
A, J
A, J
E, L
Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B.1‐8: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit (continued) WPRFMC Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit
Octopodidae (octopuses)
Day octopus (Octopus cyanea)
Night octopus (Octupus ornatus)
Mugilidae (mullets)
Stripped mullet (Mugil cephalus)
Engel’s mullet (Moolgarda engeli)
False mullet (Neomyxus leuciscus)
Muraenidae (moray eels)
Yellowmargin moray (Gymnothorax flavimarginatus)
Giant moray (Gymnothorax javanicus)
Undulated moray (Gymnothorax undulatus)
Polynemidae (threadfins)
Threadfin/Moi (Polydactylus sexfilis)
Ma
La
Es
SB
Ss
Cr/Hs
Pr
A, J, S
All
A, J, S
All
All
All
All
J
A, J, S
A, J, S
J
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J
A, J
A, J, S
A, J, S
J
A, J, S
Sphyraenidae (barracudas)
Heller’s barracuda (Sphyraena helleri)
Great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda)
A, J
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
A, J, S
DST
Pe
All
L
A
A, J, S
A, J, S
Priacanthidae (bigeyes)
Glasseye (Heteropriacanthus cruentatus)
Bigeye (Priacanthus hamrur)
Scaridae (parrotfishes)
Parrotfishes (Scarus and Chlorurus spp.)
Stareye parrotfish (Calotomus carolinus)
A, J
Sz
A, J, S
E, L
E, L
A, J
A, J
A, J
A, J
A, J, S
A, J, S
J
A, J, S
A, J, S
E, L
A, J
E, L
E, L
A, S
All
Notes: Egg (E), Larvae (L), Juvenile (J), Adult (A), Spawners (S)
Mangrove (Ma), Lagoon (La), Estuarine (Es), Seagrass Beds (SB), Soft substrate (Ss), Coral Reef/Hard Substrate (Cr/Hr), Patch Reefs (Pr), Surge Zone (Sz), Deep-Slope
Terraces (DST), Pelagic/Open Ocean (Pe); WPRFMC = Western Pacific Fishery Management Council
Source: WPRFMC 2009
B‐13 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B.1‐9: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Pelagic Management Unit WPRFMC Pelagic Management Unit
Ma
La
Es
SB
Ss
Cr/Hs
Pr
Sz
DST
Pe
Comments
Temperate Species
Striped marlin (Tetrapurus audax)
A,J.L.E
Depth Distribution: governed by
temperature stratification
Broadbill swordfish (Xiphias gladius)
A,J.L.E
Depth Distribution: surface to 1,000 m
Northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)
A,J,L,E
No data
Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga)
A,J,L
Depth Distribution: surface to 380 m
Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: surface to 600 m
Mackerel (Scomber spp.)
A,J,L,E
No data
Sickle pomfret (Tatactichthys steindachneri)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: surface to 300 m
Lustrous pomfret (Eumegistus illustris)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: surface to 549 m
Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: upper 100 m with
marked oxyclines
Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: 36 to 200 m
Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: surface to 263 m
Frigate tuna (Auxis thazard)
A,J,L,E
No data
Bullet tuna (Auxis rochei)
A,J,L,E
No data
Indo-Pacific blue marlin (Makaira nigricans)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: 80 to 100 m
Black marlin (Makaira indica)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: 457 to 914 m
Shortbill spearfish (Tetrapturus angustirostris)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: 40 to 1,830 m
Sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: 10 to 20, to 200 to
250 m
A,J,L,E
No data
A,J,L,E
No data
Tropical Species
Dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus)
A,J
Pompano dolphinfish (Coryphaena equiselas)
B‐14 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Table B.1‐9: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Pelagic Management Unit (continued) WPRFMC Pelagic Management Unit
Ma
La
Es
SB
Ss
Cr/Hs
Pr
Sz
DST
Pe
Comments
Tropical Species (continued)
Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri)
A,J,L,E
Moonfish (Lampris guttatus)
Adult depth <200 m
A,J
Depth Distribution: surface to 500 m
Escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: surface to 200 m
Oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: surface to 700 m
A,J
Depth Distribution: surface to 300 m
A,J
Depth Distribution: surface to 366 m
A,J
Depth Distribution: surface to 152 m
Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus)
A,J
Depth Distribution: surface to 500 m
Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus)
A,J
Depth Distribution: surface to 500 m
Longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus)
A,J
No data
Salmon shark (Lamna ditropis)
A,J
Depth Distribution: surface to 152 m
A,J
Adult depth of 18 to 500 m
A,J
Adult depth of 37 to 152 m
Non-marketable Species Complex
Shark Species Complex
Crocodile shark (Pseudocarcharias kamoharai)
Thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus)
J
Pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus)
A
A
Silky shark (Carcharhinus falcirormis)
A
Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus
longimanus)
Blue shark (Prionace glauca)
A,J,L,E
Depth Distribution: surface to 152 m
Notes: Life History Stage: Egg (E), Larvae (L), Juvenile (J), Adult (A), Spawners (S). Habitat: Mangrove (Ma), Lagoon (La), Estuarine (Es), Seagrass Beds (SB), Soft Substrate (Ss),
Coral Reef/Hard Substrate (Cr/Hs), Patch Reefs (Pr), Surge Zone (Sz), Deep-slope Terraces (DST), Pelagic/Open Ocean (Pe); WPRFMC = Western Pacific Fishery Management
Council
Source: WPRFMC 1998, 2001a
B‐15 Hawaii‐Southern California Training and Testing Essential Fish Habitat Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank B‐16