Item J1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: October 16, 2013 Division: Planning
Bulk Item: Yes _ No X Department: Growth Management
Staff Contact Person/Phone#: Christine Hurley 289-2517
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Update on the United States Navy's Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing
Final Environmental Impact Statement (AFTT FEIS) and the Navy's selection of Alternative 2 as the
Preferred Alternative.
ITEM BACKGROUND: In August 2013, the Department of the Navy released the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas EIS for U.S. Navy training and testing activities conducted within the
Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area (AFTT FEIS Executive Summary attached). The Study
Area is in the western Atlantic Ocean and encompasses the waters off the east coast of North America and
the Gulf of Mexico. The Study Area covers approximately 2.6 million square nautical miles of ocean area,
and includes designated U.S. Navy operating areas and special use airspace. The Key West Range
Complex is included within the Study Area. The Key West Range Complex lies off the southwestern
coast of mainland Florida and along the southern Florida Keys, extending seaward into the Gulf of
Mexico 150 nm and south into the Straits of Florida 60 nm. The Key West Range Complex includes
special use airspace with associated warning areas and surface and subsurface sea space of the Key West
operating area. The Key West operating area is 8,288 nm2 of sea space and undersea space south of Key
West.
AFTT FEIS-ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE):
• Adjustment of the Study Area: Does not expand the area where the Navy trains and tests but expands the
Study Area that is analyzed.
• Adjustments to Locations and Tempo of Training and Testing Activities: Includes changes to training and
testing requirements necessary to accommodate (a) the relocation of ships, aircraft, and personnel, (b)
planned aircraft, vessels, and weapons systems, and (c) ongoing activities not addressed in previous
documentation.
• Force Structure Changes: Force structure changes involve the relocation of ships, aircraft, and personnel. As
forces are moved within the existing Navy structure, training needs will necessarily change as the location
of forces change.
• Planned Aircraft, Vessels, and Weapons Systems: This EIS/OEIS examines the training and testing
requirements of planned vessels, aircraft, and weapons systems that the Navy would use in the Study Area.
• Ongoing Activities: Current training and testing activities that were not addressed in previous documentation
are analyzed in this EIS/OEIS.
Included Training Activities:
• Conduct additional surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, and anti-submarine warfare activities during post-
delivery test and trial and during training events, which will be required to support an increased or
accelerated delivery of surface ships and submarines.
• Increase air combat maneuver events in the Key West Range Complex.
• Introduce surface ships outfitted with kinetic energy weapon capability, and train with this new weapon
system.
• Perform additional training with unmanned vehicles in support of mine warfare and of civilian port defense
missions in commercial and civilian ports. Events would occur at various east coast and Gulf of Mexico
locations.
Included Testing Activities:
• New ship construction to include more sea trials for aircraft carriers, Joint High Speed Vessels, and
amphibious assault ships; more Littoral Combat Ship Mission Package test events; and increased post-
homeporting testing.
• Life cycle activities, including more ship signature test events.
• Naval Sea Systems Command Range activities, including more test events on each of the Naval Sea Systems
Command's ranges and contingency for increased mine countermeasure testing at South Florida Ocean
Measurement Facility Testing Range.
• Anti-surface warfare/anti-submarine warfare, including more events conducted as well as conducting kinetic
energy weapon testing on vessels at sea.
• Mine warfare testing, including more events conducted.
• Shipboard protection systems and swimmer defense testing, including more events conducted and increased
flexibility in conducting all chemical simulant testing in either location identified.
• Unmanned vehicle testing, including more events conducted and increased flexibility in conducting all
underwater deployed unmanned aerial vehicle testing in either location identified.
• Other testing would include the introduction of the MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems and their use
during maritime patrol aircraft anti-submarine warfare testing events; more events conducted overall, with
a 10 percent increase in the tempo of all proposed Naval Air Systems Command testing activities; and
increased flexibility in conducting all at-sea explosive testing in either location identified.
Keith and Schnars (K&S) has provided assistance to the BOCC, County Administrator and the County's
Environmental Impact Study Oversight Committee (EIS Committee) in the review and preparation of
comments in response to both the NASKW and AFTT Navy published Draft DEIS and two Final EIS
documents. In July 9, 2012, the County sent an official County response letter to Navy's AFTT DEIS
(with 33 comments) based upon input received from the BOCC, EIS Committee, County staff and other
public comments (letter attached). The AFTT FEIS includes Appendix E Public Comments and
Responses which includes the Navy's responses to all the agency comments received (excerpt of
Appendix E attached).
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: N/A
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/A
TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty_ OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM#
,
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ESA INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of the Navy(Navy) prepared this Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)/Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS)to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)
and Executive Order(EO) 12114.The Navy also prepared this EIS/OEIS to assess the potential
environmental impacts associated with two categories of military readiness activities:training and
testing.Collectively,the at-sea areas in this EIS/OEIS are referred to as the Atlantic Fleet Training and
Testing(AFTT)Study Area (Study Area) (Figure ES-1).
Major conflicts,terrorism, lawlessness,and natural disasters all have the potential to threaten the
national security of the United States (U.S.). National security, prosperity,and vital interests are
increasingly tied to other nations because of the close relationships between the United States and
other national economies.The Navy carries out training and testing activities to be able to protect the
United States against its enemies,to protect and defend the rights of the United States and its allies to
move freely on the oceans,and to provide humanitarian assistance to failed states.Training and testing
activities that prepare the Navy to fulfill its mission to protect and defend the United States and its allies
potentially impact the environment.These activities may trigger legal requirements identified in many
U.S.federal environmental laws, regulations,and executive orders.
After thoroughly reviewing its environmental compliance requirements,the Navy instituted a policy in
the year 2000 designed to comprehensively address these requirements.That policy—the Navy's At-Sea
Policy—resulted, in part, in a series of comprehensive analyses of training and testing activities on U.S.
at-sea range complexes and operating areas(OPAREA).These analyses served as the basis for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to issue Marine Mammal Protection Act(MMPA)
incidental take authorizations because of the potential effects of some training and testing activities on
species protected by federal law.The first of these analyses and incidental take authorizations resulted
in a series of documents, completed in 2008 and 2009,for which incidental take authorizations begin to
expire in early 2014.This EIS/OEIS updates these analyses and supports issuance of new incidental take
authorizations.This EIS/OEIS also furthers compliance with the Navy's policy for comprehensive analysis
by expanding the geographic scope to include additional areas where training and testing activities have
historically occurred.
The AFTT Draft EIS/OEIS was released for public review and comment 25 May 2012 through 10 July
2012.Changes in this Final EIS/OEIS reflect all substantive comments made on the Draft EIS/OEIS during
the public comment period and Navy refinements to the Proposed Action.The key changes between the
AFTT Draft EIS/OEIS and Final EIS/OEIS can be found in the Foreword.
ES.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED MILITARY READINESS TRAINING AND TESTING
ACTIVITIES
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to conduct training and testing activities to ensure that the Navy
meets its mission,which is to maintain,train,and equip combat-ready naval forces capable of winning
wars,deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas.This mission is achieved in part by
conducting training and testing within the Study Area.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST2013)
,
a
....AFTT WO Amen Axemedve
... W ✓ bel
...,,r ��ry rcW ..:Study Area
+ .. AFTTAHemative t and 2
i k 'w StdyA—
OPAREAaouA
L_!T..%v Reap B..day
Navy Pon.Pw.W.L—thn
'` �brr.' • NevY Cantreamr shipyM
t
IIOoR- e
P Npythseet
F
7
"^^« caRmh la ne•Virginia
Rag® mPkx
'$
"NeeY Chong Polnt
�y nenge Complex
' yy Range complex R N
3
Oug•Pfeaxl6• l 122.500.600
b. e.,...e...e.,,.e........e,.e...„e...,.e.aaa...a...e..a.,...e.................e.......,,....... -5
,a W�ComQkx
�� ^YIMu� � . na4.y lAMf
� r ,
1��� (;aeMtlf 6Nam.HG.9,M1MM�
Figure ES-1:Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area
AFTT.•Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing;OPAREA:operating area
ES-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
ES.3 SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/OVERSEAS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
In this EIS/OEIS,the Navy assessed military readiness training and testing activities that could potentially
impact human and natural resources,especially marine mammals,sea turtles,and other marine
resources.The range of alternatives includes the No Action and other reasonable courses of action. In
this EIS/OEIS,the Navy analyzed direct, indirect,cumulative,short-term, long-term, irreversible, and
irretrievable impacts.The Navy is the lead agency for the Proposed Action and is responsible for the
scope and content of this EIS/OEIS.The National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS) is a cooperating
agency because of its expertise and regulatory authority over marine resources.Additionally,this
document will serve as NMFS'NEPA documentation for the rule-making process under the MMPA.
In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations,40 Code of Federal Regulations
(C.F.R.)§ 1505.2,the Navy will issue a Record of Decision that provides the rationale for choosing one of
the alternatives.The decision will be based on factors analyzed in this EIS/OEIS, including military
training and testing objectives, best available science and modeling data, potential environmental
impacts, and public interest.
ES.3.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
Federal agencies are required under NEPA to examine the environmental impacts of their proposed
actions within the United States and its territories.An EIS is a detailed public document that provides an
assessment of the potential effects that a major federal action might have on the human environment,
which includes the natural environment.The Navy undertakes environmental planning for major Navy
actions occurring throughout the world in accordance with applicable laws, regulations,and executive
orders. Presidential Proclamation 5928, issued December 27, 1988,extended the exercise of U.S.
sovereignty and jurisdiction under international law to 12 nautical miles(nm); however,the
proclamation expressly provides that it does not extend or otherwise alter existing federal law or any
associated jurisdiction, rights, legal interests,or obligations.Thus,as a matter of policy,the Navy
analyzes environmental effects and actions within 12 nm under NEPA(an EIS).
ES.3.2 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12114
This OEIS has been prepared in accordance with EO 12114(44 Federal Register 1957)and Navy
implementing regulations in 32 C.F.R. Part 187,Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.
An OEIS is required because the proposed action and the alternatives have the potential to significantly
harm the environment of the global commons.The global commons are defined as geographical areas
outside the jurisdiction of any nation and include the oceans outside of the territorial limits (more than
12 nm from the coast)and Antarctica, but do not include contiguous zones and fisheries zones of foreign
nations(32 C.F.R. § 187.3).This EIS and OEIS have been combined into one document,as permitted
under NEPA and EO 12114,to reduce duplication.
ES.3.3 MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT
The MMPA of 1972 (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] §§ 1361-1407)established,with limited exceptions,a
moratorium on the"taking"of marine mammals in waters or on lands under U.S.jurisdiction.The act
further regulates"takes" of marine mammals in the global commons(that is,the high seas) by vessels or
persons under U.S.jurisdiction.The term"take,"as defined in Section 3 (16 U.S.C. § 1362(13))of the
MMPA, means"to harass, hunt, capture,or kill,or attempt to harass, hunt,capture,or kill any marine
mammal." "Harassment"was further defined in the 1994 amendments to the MMPA,which provided
two levels of harassment: Level A(potential injury)and Level B(potential behavioral disturbance).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-3
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
The MMPA directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow,upon request,the incidental, but not
intentional,taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S.citizens who engage in a specified
activity(other than commercial fishing)within a specified geographical region if NMFS finds that the
taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s),and will not have an immitigable adverse
impact on the availability of the species or stock(s)for subsistence uses(where relevant).The
authorization must set forth the permissible methods of taking,other means of attaining the least
practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat,and requirements pertaining to the
mitigation, monitoring,and reporting of such taking.
The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004(Public Law 108-136)amended the definition
of harassment and removed the"small numbers" provision as applied to military readiness activities or
scientific research activities conducted by or on behalf of the federal government consistent with
Section 104(c)(3) (16 U.S.C. § 1374(c)(3)).The Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act
adopted the definition of"military readiness activity" as set forth in the Fiscal Year 2003 National
Defense Authorization Act(Public Law 107-314).A"military readiness activity" is defined as "all training
and operations of the Armed Forces that relate to combat"and "the adequate and realistic testing of
military equipment,vehicles,weapons,and sensors for proper operation and suitability for combat
use."Since the Proposed Action involves conducting military readiness activities,the relevant definition
of harassment is any act that
• injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock
in the wild ("Level A harassment")or
• disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by
causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration,
surfacing, nursing, breeding,feeding,or sheltering to a point where such behavioral
patterns are abandoned or significantly altered ("Level B harassment") [16 U.S.C. §
1362(18)(B)(i)and (ii)).
ES.3.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The Endangered Species Act(ESA)of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544)established protection over and
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.An
"endangered"species is a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.A"threatened"species is one that is likely to become endangered within the near future
throughout all or in a significant portion of its range.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS jointly
administer the ESA and are also responsible for the listing of species (designating a species as either
threatened or endangered).The ESA allows the designation of geographic areas as critical habitat for
threatened or endangered species.Section 7(a)(2) requires each federal agency to ensure that any
action it authorizes,funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
of such species.When a federal agency's action "may affect" a listed species,that agency is required to
consult the Service(NMFS or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)which has jurisdiction over the species(50
C.F.R. §402.14(a)). Under the terms of Section 7(b)(4)and Section 7(o)(2)of the ESA,taking that is
incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking
under the act provided that such taking complies with the terms and conditions of an Incidental Take
Statement.The ESA applies to marine mammals,sea turtles,crocodiles, birds, marine invertebrates,fish,
and plants evaluated in this EIS/OEIS.
ES-4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
ES.3.5 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS CONSIDERED
The Navy must comply with all applicable federal environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders,
including, but not limited to,those listed below. Further information can be found in Chapter 3 (Affected
Environment and Environmental Consequences)and Chapter 6(Additional Regulatory Considerations).
• Abandoned Shipwreck Act
• Antiquities Act
• Clean Air Act
• Clean Water Act
• Coastal Zone Management Act
• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• National Historic Preservation Act
• National Marine Sanctuaries Act
• Rivers and Harbors Act
• EO 12898,Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations
• EO 12962,Recreational Fisheries
• EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
• EO 13089, Coral Reef Protection
• EO 13158,Marine Protected Areas
• EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
• EO 13547,Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes
ESA PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
The Navy`s Proposed Action is to conduct training and testing activities—that may include the use of
active sonar and explosives—primarily within existing range complexes and testing ranges in the
western Atlantic Ocean off the east coast of the United States, in the Gulf of Mexico,and in portions of
the Caribbean Sea.These activities will also occur at Navy pierside locations, Navy-contracted
shipbuilder locations, port transit channels,and the lower Chesapeake Bay.Through this EIS/OEIS,the
Navy will
• Reassess the environmental analysis of Navy at-sea training and testing activities contained in
seven separate EISs/OEISs and various Environmental Assessments/Overseas Environmental
Assessments and consolidate these analyses into a single environmental planning document.
This reassessment will support reauthorization of incidental takes of marine mammals under the
MMPA and incidental takes of threatened and endangered marine species through consultation
under Section 7 of the ESA.The following seven EIS/OEIS documents are being consolidated:
■ Final Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement(December 2008)
■ Virginia Capes Range Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement(March 2009)
■ Navy Cherry Point Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement (April 2009)
■ Jacksonville Range Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement (March 2009)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-5
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
■ Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement,
Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division Mission Activities (September 2009)
Gulf of Mexico Range Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas
Environmental Impact Statement(December 2010)
Final Overseas Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Statement,
Undersea Warfare Training Range(June 2009)
• Adjust baseline training and testing activities from current levels to the level needed to support
Navy training and testing requirements beginning January 2014.As part of the adjustment,the
Navy accounts for other activities and sound sources not addressed in the previous analyses.
• Analyze the potential environmental impacts of training and testing activities in additional areas
(areas not covered in previous documents)where training and testing historically occurs,
including Navy ports, naval shipyards, Navy-contractor shipyards,and the transit channels
serving these areas.
• Update the at-sea environmental impact analyses for Navy activities 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.
• Implement enhanced range capabilities.
• 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.
ES.4.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No Action Alternative is required by regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality as a
baseline against which the impacts of the Proposed Action are compared.The No Action Alternative
continues baseline training and testing activities and force structure requirements as defined by existing
Navy environmental planning documents.
The No Action Alternative represents the activities and events analyzed in previously completed
documents. However, it would fail to meet the current purpose of and need for the Navy's Proposed
Action because it would not allow the Navy to conduct the training and testing activities necessary to
achieve and maintain fleet readiness. For example,the baseline activities do not account for changes in
force structure requirements,the introduction of new weapons and platforms, and the training and
testing required for proficiency with these systems.
ES.4.2 ALTERNATIVE 1
This alternative consists of the No Action Alternative plus the expansion of Study Area boundaries and
adjustments to the locations and tempos of training and testing activities.
• Adjustment of the Study Area:This EIS/OEIS analyzes areas where Navy training and testing
would continue as in the past, but which were not considered in previous environmental
analyses.This alternative would not expand the area where the Navy trains and tests but
would simply expand the area that is to be analyzed.
• Adjustments to Locations and Tempo of Training and Testing Activities:This alternative
also includes changes to training and testing requirements necessary to accommodate (a)
the relocation of ships, aircraft,and personnel, (b) planned aircraft,vessels,and weapons
systems,and (c)ongoing activities not addressed in previous documentation.
ES-6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
■ Force Structure Changes: Force structure changes involve the relocation of ships,
aircraft, and personnel.As forces are moved within the existing Navy structure,training
needs will necessarily change as the location of forces change.
■ Planned Aircraft,Vessels,and Weapons Systems:This EIS/OEIS examines the training
and testing requirements of planned vessels,aircraft,and weapons systems that the
Navy would use in the Study Area.
■ Ongoing Activities:Current training and testing activities that were not addressed in
previous documentation are analyzed in this EIS/OEIS.
Alternative 1 reflects the adjustment to the baseline necessary to support current and proposed Navy
at-sea training and testing activities through 2019.
ES.4.3 ALTERNATIVE 2(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)
Alternative 2 consists of Alternative 1 plus the establishment of new range capabilities and
modifications of existing capabilities,adjustments to types and tempos of training and testing,and the
establishment of additional locations to conduct activities within the Study Area.This alternative is
contingent upon potential budget increases,strategic necessity, and future training and testing
requirements.
Alternative 2 includes the following training activities:
• Conduct additional surface-to-air,surface-to-surface, and anti-submarine warfare activities
during post-delivery test and trial and during training events,which will be required to
support an increased or accelerated delivery of surface ships and submarines.
• Increase air combat maneuver events in the Key West Range Complex.
• Introduce surface ships outfitted with kinetic energy weapon capability,and train with this
new weapon system.
• Perform additional training with unmanned vehicles in support of mine warfare and of
civilian port defense missions in commercial and civilian ports. Events would occur at
various east coast and Gulf of Mexico locations.
Alternative 2 includes the following testing activities:
• New ship construction to include more sea trials for aircraft carriers,Joint High Speed
Vessels, and amphibious assault ships; more Littoral Combat Ship Mission Package test
events;and increased post-home porting testing.
• Life cycle activities, including more ship signature test events.
• Naval Sea Systems Command Range activities, including more test events on each of the
Naval Sea Systems Command's ranges and contingency for increased mine countermeasure
testing at South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range.
• Anti-surface warfare/anti-submarine warfare, including more events conducted as well as
conducting kinetic energy weapon testing on vessels at sea.
• Mine warfare testing, including more events conducted.
• Shipboard protection systems and swimmer defense testing, including more events
conducted and increased flexibility in conducting all chemical simulant testing in either
location identified.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-7
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
• Unmanned vehicle testing, including more events conducted and increased flexibility in
conducting all underwater deployed unmanned aerial vehicle testing in either location
identified.
• Other testing would include the introduction of the MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft
Systems and their use during maritime patrol aircraft anti-submarine warfare testing events;
more events conducted overall,with a 10 percent increase in the tempo of all proposed
Naval Air Systems Command testing activities;and increased flexibility in conducting all at-
sea explosive testing in either location identified.
ES.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Environmental effects that might result from the implementation of the Navy's Proposed Action or
alternatives have been analyzed in this EIS/OEIS. Resource areas analyzed include sediments and water
quality, air quality, marine habitats, marine mammals,sea turtles and other marine reptiles, birds,
marine vegetation, marine invertebrates,fish, cultural resources, socioeconomic resources,and public
health and safety.The effects on these resources are summarized in Table ES-1.This table compares the
potential environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and Alternative 2 (Preferred
Alternative).
ES.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The analyses presented in Chapters 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences)and 4
(Cumulative Impacts), indicate that the incremental contribution of the No Action Alternative,
Alternative 1, or Alternative 2 to cumulative impacts on sediments and water quality,air quality, marine
habitats, birds, marine vegetation, marine invertebrates,fish, cultural resources,socioeconomic
resources, and public health and safety would be negligible.The No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,or
Alternative 2 would also make an incremental contribution to greenhouse gas emissions,representing
approximately 0.01,0.02, and 0.02 percent of U.S. 2009 greenhouse gas emissions, respectively.
Marine mammals and sea turtles are the primary resources of concern for cumulative impacts analysis
for the following reasons:
• Past human actions impacted these resources to the extent that several marine mammal
species and all sea turtles species occurring in the Study Area are ESA-listed.Several marine
mammal species have stocks that are classified as strategic stocks under the MMPA.
• These resources would be impacted by multiple ongoing and future actions.
• Explosive detonations and vessel strikes under the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and
Alternative 2 have the potential to disturb, injure, or kill marine mammals and sea turtles.
The aggregate impacts of past, present,and other reasonably foreseeable future actions are expected to
result in impacts on some species of marine mammals and all sea turtle species in the Study Area.The
No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,or Alternative 2 would contribute to cumulative impacts, but the
relative contribution would be low compared to other actions. Compared to potential mortality or injury
resulting from Navy training and testing activities, marine mammal and sea turtle mortality and injury
from bycatch,commercial vessel ship strikes,entanglement,ocean pollution, and other human causes
are estimated to be orders of magnitude greater(hundreds of thousands of animals versus tens of
animals).
ES-8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-1:Summary of Environmental impacts for the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and Alternative 2
ReaOaroe CategOry"W/2 �, y„�„!' „�„, i $Umrriary Of;ImF18Ct8OF
Sediments and Water No Action Alternative:The Navy considered all potential stressors and determined that military expended materials containing the
Quality following have the potential to impact sediments and water quality:explosives and explosion byproducts,metals,chemicals other
(3.1) than explosives,and other materials.Impacts from explosion byproducts could be short-term and local;impacts from unconsumed
explosives and metals could be long-term and local.In both situations,chemical,physical,or biological changes to sediments or
water quality would be measurable but below applicable standards,regulations,and guidelines,and would be within existing
conditions or designated uses.Impacts from chemicals other than explosives and from other materials could be both short-and
long-term and local.Chemical,physical,or biological changes to sediments or water quality would not be detectable and would be
below or within existing conditions or designated uses.
Alternative 1:The number of individual impacts may increase under Altemative 1,but the types of impacts would be the same as
the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase,changes to sediments and water quality under Alternative 1 would still be
considered localized and either short-or long-term depending on the explosive,explosive byproduct,metal,or chemical.Impacts
under Altemative 1 would be below applicable standards,regulations,and guidelines and would be within existing conditions or
designated uses.
Alternative 2(Preferred Alternative):The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 2,but the types of impacts
would be the same as the No Action Altemative.Despite the increase,changes to sediments and water quality under Alternative 2
would still be considered localized and either short-or long-term depending on the explosive,explosive byproduct,metal,or
chemical.Impacts under Alternative 2 would be below applicable standards,regulations,and guidelines and would be within
existing conditions or designated uses.
Air Quality No Action Altemative:Stressors analyzed include criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.The Proposed Action would
(3.2) result in minor local emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.These emissions would result in no change to
attainment status of local air basins and would not cause an impact on public health.Even though these stressors co-occur in time
and space,there would be sufficient dispersion so the impacts would be short term.Because changes in criteria pollutant emissions
and hazardous air pollutant emissions are not expected to be detectable,air quality is expected to fully recover before experiencing
a subsequent exposure.For those areas within the Study Area where the General Conformity Rule of the Clean Air Act applies,
analyses showed that the low levels of emissions of all applicable criteria pollutants were de minimis and therefore no Conformity
Determinations were required.
Alternative 1:The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 1,but the types of impacts would be the same as
the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase in criteria air pollutants,changes to air quality under Alternative 1 would still be
considered minor and localized;changes to air quality from hazardous air pollutants are not expected to be detectable.For those
areas within the Study Area where the General Conformity Rule of the Clean Air Act applies,analyses showed that the low levels of
emissions of all applicable criteria pollutants were de minimis and therefore no Conformity Determinations were required.
Alternative 2(Preferred Altemative):The number of individual impacts may increase under Altemative 2,but the types of impacts
would be the same as the No Action Altemative.Despite the increase in criteria air pollutants,changes to air quality under
Alternative 2 would still be considered minor and localized;changes to air quality from hazardous air pollutants are not expected to
be detectable.For those areas within the Study Area where the General Conformity Rule of the Clean Air Act applies,analyses
showed that the low levels of emissions of all applicable criteria pollutants were de minimis and therefore no Conformity
Determinations were required.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-9
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-1:Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and Alternative 2(Continued)
Resouroe Cate o
6 rY/< ,Summary of lmpaate y I
Marine Habitats No Action Alternative:The Navy considered all potential stressors and analyzed the following for potential impacts on manne
(3.3) habitats as a non-living substrate for sedentary biological communities(marine vegetation and invertebrates):acoustic
(explosives on or near the bottom only)and physical disturbance and strikes(military expended materials and seafloor
devices).The activities could impact marine habitats by localized disturbance of the seafloor,cratering of soft bottom
sediments,and structural damage to hard bottom habitats.Impacts on soft bottom habitats would be short term,and impacts
on hard bottom would be long term.Activities under the No Action Alternative would not impact the ability of marine substrates
to serve their function as habitat.
Pursuant to the Essential Fish Habitat requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations,the use of explosives on or near the bottom,military expended materials,and seafloor devices
during training and testing activities may have an adverse effect on Essential Fish Habitat by reducing the quality and quantity
of non-living substrates that constitute Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.
Alternative 1:The number of individual impacts may increase under Altemative 1,but the types of impacts would be the same
as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase,changes to marine substrates could include localized disturbance of the
seafloor,cratering of soft bottom sediments,and structural damage to hard bottom habitats.Impacts on soft bottom habitats
would be short term,and impacts on hard bottom would be long term.Activities under Alternative 1 would not impact the ability
of marine substrates to serve their function as habitat Pursuant to the Essential Fish Habitat requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations,the use of explosives on or near the
bottom,military expended materials,and seafloor devices under Altemative 1 may have an adverse effect on Essential Fish
Habitat by reducing the quality and quantity of non-living substrates that constitute Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern.
Alternative 2(Preferred Alternative):The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 2,but the types of
impacts would be the same as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase,changes to marine substrates could include
localized disturbance of the seafloor,cratering of soft bottom sediments,and structural damage to hard bottom habitats.
Impacts on soft bottom habitats would be short term,and impacts on hard bottom would be long term.Activities under
Altemative 2 would not impact the ability of marine substrates to serve their function as habitat.Pursuant to the Essential Fish
Habitat requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations,the
use of explosives on or near the bottom,military expended materials,and seafloor devices under Alternative 2 may have an
adverse effect on Essential Fish Habitat by reducing the quality and quantity of non-living substrates that constitute Essential
Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.
Marine Mammals No Action Alternative:The Navy considered all potential stressors and analyzed the following:acoustic(sonar and other
(3.4) active acoustic sources;explosives;pile driving;swimmer defense airguns;weapons firing,launch,and impact noise;vessel
noise;aircraft noise);energy(electromagnetic devices and high energy lasers);physical disturbance and strike(vessels in-
water devices,military expended materials,seafloor devices);entanglement(fiber optic cables and guidance wires;
parachutes);ingestion(munitions and military expended materials other than munitions);and secondary(explosives and
byproducts,metals,chemicals,and transmission of disease and parasites).
MMPA:Marine Mammal Protection Act
ES-10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING-AND-TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-1:Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and Alternative 2(Continued)
ReeOlJrce,Category%', SunimaryOftlmpaCts,?
Acoustic:Pursuant to the MMPA,the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources may result Level A or Level B harassment
of certain marine mammals;the use of explosives may result in mortality,Level A or Level B harassment of certain marine
mammals;pile driving is not expected to result in mortality but may result in Level A or Level B harassment of bottlenose
dolphins;the use of swimmer defense airguns,weapons firing,vessel noise,and aircraft noise are not expected to result in
mortality,Level A or Level B harassment of any marine mammals.Pursuant to the ESA,sonar and other active acoustic
sources and explosives may affect and are likely to adversely affect certain ESA-listed marine mammals;pile driving,swimmer
defense airguns,weapons firing,vessel noise,and aircraft noise may affect but are not likely to adversely affect certain ESA-
listed marine mammals;and all acoustic sources will have no effect on marine mammal critical habitats.
Enemy:Pursuant to the MMPA,the use of electromagnetic devices and high energy lasers is not expected to result in
mortality,Level A or B harassment of any marine mammals.Pursuant to the ESA,the use of electromagnetic devices may
affect but are not likely to adversely affect certain ESA-listed marine mammals and will have no effect on marine mammal
critical habitats.Pursuant to the ESA,the use of high energy lasers will have no effect on any ESA-listed marine mammal and
will have no effect on marine mammal critical habitats.
Physical Disturbance and Strike:Pursuant to the MMPA,the use of vessels may result in mortality or Level A harassment of
certain marine mammal species but is not expected to result in Level B harassment of any marine mammal.The use of in-water
devices,military expended materials,and seafloor devices are not expected to result in mortality,Level A or B harassment of
any marine mammal.Pursuant to the ESA,vessel use may affect and is likely to adversely affect certain ESA-listed species.
The use of in-water devices and military expended materials may affect but is not likely to adversely affect certain marine
mammal species.The use of seafloor devices will have no effect on any ESA-listed marine mammal.The use of vessels,in-
water devices,military expended materials,and seafoor devices will have no effect on marine mammal critical habitats.
Entanglement:Pursuant to the MMPA,the use of fiber optic cables,guidance wires,and parachutes is not expected to result in
mortality,Level A or B harassment of any marine mammal.Pursuant to the ESA,the use of fiber optic cables,guidance wires,
and parachutes may affect but is not likely to adversely affect certain ESA-listed marine mammals.
Ingestion:Pursuant to the MMPA,the potential for ingestion of all military expended materials is not expected to result in
mortality,Level A or B harassment of any marine mammal.Pursuant to the ESA,the potential for ingestion of all military
expended materials may affect but is not likely to adversely affect certain ESA-listed species.
Secondary:Pursuant to the MMPA,secondary stressors are not expected to result in mortality,Level A or B harassment of any
marine mammal.Pursuant to the ESA,secondary stressors may affect but are not likely to adversely affect certain ESA-listed
marine mammals and will have no effect on marine mammal critical habitats.
The use of sonar and active acoustic sources are not expected to result in mortality,although the potential for beaked whale
mortality coincident with use of sonar and other active acoustic sources is considered.The Navy has requested 10 beaked
whale mortality takes under the MMPA as part of all training activities combined to account for any unforeseen potential
impacts.
Alternative 1:The number of individual impacts may increase under Altemative 1,but the types of impacts would be the same
as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase,impacts on marine mammals under Alternative 1 are still not expected to
decrease the overall fitness of any marine mammal population.
Alternative 2(Preferred Alternative):The number of individual impacts may increase under Altemative 2,but the types of
impacts would be the same as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase,impacts on marine mammals under Alternative
2 are still not expected to decrease the overall fitness of any marine mammal population.
ESA:Endangered Species Act,MMPA:Marine Mammal Protection Act
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-11
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-1:Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and Alternative 2(Continued)
Resource CLtegory� ' Su�nina of
Sea Turtles and Other Marine No Action Alternative:The Navy considered all potential stressors and the following have been analyzed:acoustic(sonar and
Reptiles other active acoustic sources,explosives,pile driving,swimmer defense airguns,weapons firing launch,and impact noise,and
(3.5) aircraft and vessel noise);energy(electromagnetic devices,high energy lasers);physical disturbance and strikes(vessels,in-
water devices,military expended materials,seafloor devices);entanglement(fiber optic cables,guidance wires,and
parachutes);and ingestion(munitions and military expended materials other than munitions);and secondary(explosives and
byproducts,metals,and chemicals).All five sea turtle species in the Study Area are ESA-listed species.
Acoustics:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of sonar,other active sources,and explosives may affect and is likely to adversely
affect ESA-listed sea turtles;and may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the American crocodile or American alligator.
Pile driving,swimmer defense airguns and weapons firing noise may affect but are not likely to adversely ESA-listed sea
turtles;and will have no effect on the American crocodile or American alligator.Aircraft and vessel noise may affect but is not
likely to adversely affect ESA-listed sea turtles,the American crocodile,or the American alligator.Acoustic stressors will have
no effect on critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine reptiles.
Energy:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of electromagnetic devices may affect but is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed sea
turtles;and will have no effect on the American crocodile or American alligator.The use of high energy lasers will have no
effect on any ESA-listed sea turtle species,the American alligator,or the American crocodile.The use of electromagnetic
devices and high energy lasers will have no effect on critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine reptile.
Physical Disturbance and Strikes:Pursuant to the ESA,vessel use may affect and is likely to adversely affect ESA-listed sea
turtles.The use of in-water devices and military expended materials may affect but is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed
sea turtles.The use of vessels,in-water devices,and military expended materials will have no effect on the American crocodile
or American alligator.The use of vessels,in-water devices,and military expended materials will have no effect on critical
habitat for any ESA-listed marine reptiles.
Entanglement:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of fiber optic cables,guidance wires,and parachutes may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect ESA-listed sea turtles;and will have no effect on the American crocodile or American alligator.
Ingestion:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of munitions with the potential for ingestion may affect but is not likely to adversely
affect ESA-listed green,hawksbill,Kemp's ridley,and loggerhead sea turtles;and will have no effect on the leatherback sea
turtle,American crocodile,or American alligator.The potential for ingestion of military expended materials other than munitions
may affect but is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed sea turtles;and will have no effect on the American crocodile or
American alligator.
Secondary:Pursuant to the ESA,secondary stressors may affect but are not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed sea turtles,
the American crocodile,or the American alligator and will have no effect on critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine reptile.
Alternative 1:The number of individual impacts may increase under Altemative 1,but the types of impacts would be the same
as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase,impacts on sea turtles under Altemative 1 are still not expected to decrease
the overall fitness of any sea turtle,American crocodile,or American alligator population.
Alternative 2(Preferred Alternative):The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 2,but the types of
impacts would be the same as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase,impacts on sea turtles under Altemative 2 are
still not expected to decrease the overall fitness of any sea turtle,American crocodile,or American alligator population.
ESA:Endangered Spades Act;
ES-12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-1:Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and Alternative 2(Continued)
Rej6ur6 77777!% Summa ;of irrtpa„%
Birds No Action Alternative:The Navy considered all potential stressors and analyzed the following:acoustic(sonar and other
(3.6) active acoustic sources;explosives and swimmer defense airguns;pile driving;weapons firing,launch,and impact noise;
aircraft and vessel noise);energy(electromagnetic devices,high energy lasers);physical disturbance and strikes(aircraft and
aerial targets,vessels and in-water devices,military expended materials);ingestion(military expended materials);and
Secondary(general emissions).
Acoustic:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources may affect but is not likely to adversely
affect ESA-listed roseate tems and will have no effect on ESA-listed piping plover(and its critical habitat),ESA-candidate red
knot,or ESA-listed Bermuda petrel.The use of explosives,swimmer defense airguns,aircraft,and vessels may affect but is not
likely to adversely affect ESA-listed or ESA-candidate bird species,and will have no effect on piping plover critical habitat.Pile
driving may affect but is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed piping plover and roseate tems,and will have no effect on the
ESA-candidate red knot,the ESA-listed Bermuda petrel,or piping plover critical habitat.Weapons firing,launch,and impact
noise may affect but is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed Bermuda petrel or roseate tems,the ESA-candidate red knot,
and will have no effect on piping plover(and its critical habitat).
Enemy:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of electromagnetic devices during training and testing activities may affect but is not
likely to adversely affect ESA-listed piping plover(and its critical habitat),Bermuda petrel,roseate tem,or ESA-candidate red
knot.The use of high energy lasers during training and testing activities will have no effect on ESA-listed piping plover(and its
critical habitat),Bermuda petrel,roseate tem,or ESA-candidate red knot.
Physical Disturbance and Strikes:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of aircraft and aerial targets,vessels and in-water devices,and
military expended materials may affect but is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed piping plover,Bermuda petrel,roseate
tem,or ESA-candidate red knot,and will have no effect on piping plover critical habitat.
Ingestion:Pursuant to the ESA,the potential for ingestion of military expended materials used during training and testing
activities may affect but is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed Bermuda petrel or roseate tem and will have no effect on the
ESA-listed piping plover or the ESA-candidate red knot.
Secondary:Pursuant to the ESA,secondary stressors may affect but are not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed or ESA-
candidate bird species and will have no effect on critical habitat.
Alternative 1:The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 1,but the types of impacts would be the same
as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase,impacts on birds under Alternative 1 are still not expected to decrease the
overall fitness of any bird population.
Alternative 2(Preferred Alternative):The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 2,but the types of
impacts would be the same as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase,impacts on birds under Alternative 2 are still not
expected to decrease the overall fitness of any bird population.
ESA.Endangered Species Act;
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-13
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-1:Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and Alternative 2(Continued)
R980UYCe=Cate 0 " r: / ✓/9 t„Summary,oU,lmpectee
Marine Vegetation No Action Alternative:The Navy considered all potential stressors and analyzed the following:acoustic(explosives);physical
(3.7) disturbance and strike(vessels,in-water devices,military expended materials,and seafloor devices);and secondary stressors
(sediment and water quality).
Acoustics:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of explosives will have no effect on ESA-listed Johnson's seagrass or its critical
habitat.
Physical Disturbance and Strikes:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of vessels,in-water devices,military expended materials,and
seafloor devices will have no effect on ESA-listed Johnson's seagrass or its critical habitat
Secondary:Pursuant to the ESA,secondary stressors will have no effect on ESA-listed Johnson's seagrass or its critical
habitat.
Pursuant to the Essential Fish Habitat requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations,electromagnetic devices and contaminant stressors associated with training and testing activities will
have no adverse impact on marine vegetation that constitutes Essential Fish Habitat or Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.
Explosives and other impulsive sources,vessel movement,in-water devices,military expended materials,and seafloor devices
associated with training and testing activities may have an adverse effect on Essential Fish Habitat by reducing the quality and
quantity of marine vegetation that constitutes Essential Fish Habitat or Habitat Areas of Particular Concem.
Alternative 1:The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 1,but the types of impacts would be the same
as the No Action Altemative.Despite the increase,impacts from acoustic stressors and physical disturbance are not expected
to result in detectable changes to marine vegetation growth,survival,or propagation and are not expected to result in
population-level impacts.
Alternative 2(Preferred Alternative):The number of individual impacts may increase under Altemative 2,but the types of
impacts would be the same as the No Action Altemative.Despite the increase,impacts from acoustic stressors and physical
disturbance are not expected to result in detectable changes to marine vegetation growth,survival,or propagation and are not
expected to result in population-level impacts.
Marine Invertebrates No Action Alternative:The Navy considered all potential stressors and analyzed the following:acoustic(sonar and other non-
(3.8) impulsive acoustic sources,explosives,and other impulsive acoustic sources);energy(electromagnetic devices and high
energy lasers);physical disturbance and strikes(vessels and in-water devices,military expended materials,and seafloor
devices);entanglement(fiber optic cables,guidance wires,and parachutes);ingestion(military expended materials);and
secondary(explosives and byproducts,metals,chemicals,and other materials).
Acoustics:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of all non-impulsive and impulsive acoustic sources will have no effect on ESA-listed
or proposed coral species.The use of all non-impulsive and impulsive acoustic sources will have no effect on elkhorn and
staghom critical habitat.
Enemy:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of electromagnetic devices and high energy lasers will have no effect on ESA-listed or
proposed coral species.The use of electromagnetic devices and high energy lasers will have no effect on critical habitat.
ESA Endangered Species Act
ES-14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-1:Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and Alternative 2(Continued)
R6eO6rCe Cgtegory„A„ id, :, /i� �', $ ery,of
umm
Physical Disturbance and Strikes:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of vessels and in-water devices will have no effect on ESA-
listed or proposed coral species.The use of military expended materials and seafloor devices may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect ESA-listed or proposed coral species.The use of vessels,in-water devices,and seafloor devices would have
no effect on critical habitat.The use of military expended materials may affect but is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat.
Entanglement:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of fiber optic cables,guidance wires,and parachutes will have no effect on ESA-
listed or proposed coral species.
Ingestion:Pursuant to the ESA,the potential for ingestion of military expended materials will have no effect on ESA-listed or
proposed coral species.
Secondary:Pursuant to the ESA,secondary stressors may affect but are not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed or proposed
coral species and may affect but are not likely to adversely affect critical habitat.
Pursuant to the Essential Fish Habitat requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations,the use of sonar and other acoustic sources,vessel noise,swimmer defense airguns,weapons firing
noise,electromagnetic sources,high energy lasers,vessel movement,in-water devices,and metal,chemical,or other material
contaminants will have no adverse effect on sedentary invertebrate beds or reefs that constitute Essential Fish Habitat or
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.The use of electromagnetic sources will have minimal and temporary adverse impact to
invertebrates occupying water column Essential Fish Habitat or Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.The use of explosives,pile
driving,military expended materials,seafloor devices,and explosives and explosion byproduct contaminants may have an
adverse effect on Essential Fish Habitat by reducing the quality and quantity of sedentary invertebrate beds or reefs that
constitute Essential Fish Habitat or Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.
Alternative 1:The number of individual impacts may increase under Altemative 1,but the types of impacts would be the same
as the No Action Altemative.Despite the increase,impacts on marine invertebrates under Alternative 1 are not anticipated to
result in population-level impacts.
Alternative 2(Preferred Alternative):The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 2,but the types of
impacts would be the same as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase,impacts on marine invertebrates under
Alternative 2 are not anticipated to result in population-level impacts.
Fish No Action Alternative:The Navy considered all potential stressors and the following were analyzed:acoustic(sonar and other
(3.9) non-impulsive acoustic sources,explosives,and other impulsive acoustic sources);energy(electromagnetic devices,high
energy lasers);physical disturbance and strikes(vessels and in-water devices,military expended materials,and seafloor
devices);entanglement(fiber optic cables and guidance wires,parachutes);ingestion(munitions and military expended
materials other than munitions);and secondary(explosives and explosion byproducts,metals,chemicals,and other materials).
ESA:Endangered Spedes Act
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1S
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-1:Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and Alternative 2(Continued)
R68OlJfC6 /ifG! ;'oi i
or /mmmc ateQOf ,! s�Jp� / iC t
Acoustic:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of sonar and other non-impulsive acoustic sources may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect ESA-listed fish species;will have no effect on Atlantic salmon or smalltooth sawfish critical habitat;and may
affect but is not likely to adversely affect Gulf sturgeon critical habitat.Pursuant to the ESA,the use of explosives and other
impulsive acoustic sources may affect and is likely to adversely affect ESA-listed Atlantic sturgeon,Gulf sturgeon,and
smalltooth sawfish;;may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Atlantic salmon,largetooth sawfish,and shortnose
sturgeon;will have no effect on Atlantic salmon or smalltooth sawfish critical habitat;and may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect Gulf sturgeon critical habitat.
Enemy:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of electromagnetic devices during training and testing activities may affect but is not
likely to adversely affect ESA-listed largetooth sawfish,smalitooth sawfish,shortnose sturgeon,Gulf sturgeon,and Atlantic
sturgeon;will have no effect on Atlantic salmon;will have no effect on Atlantic salmon or smalltooth sawfish critical habitat;and
may affect but is not likely to adversely affect Gulf sturgeon critical habitat.Pursuant to the ESA,the use of high energy lasers
will have no effect on ESA-listed fish species;and will have no effect on Atlantic salmon,smalltooth sawfish,or Gulf sturgeon
critical habitat.
Physical Disturbance and Strikes:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of vessels,in-water devices,military expended materials,and
seafloor devices may affect but is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed fish species;may affect but is not likely to adversely
affect Gulf sturgeon critical habitat;and will have no effect on Atlantic salmon and smalltooth sawfish critical habitat.
Entanglement:Pursuant to the ESA,the use of fiber optic cables,guidance wires,and parachutes may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect ESA-listed fish species.
Ingestion:Pursuant to the ESA,the potential for ingestion of military expended materials may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect ESA-listed fish species.
Secondary Stressors:Pursuant to the ESA,secondary stressors may affect but are not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed fish
species and will have no effect on Atlantic salmon,smalltooth sawfish,and Gulf sturgeon critical habitat.
Pursuant to the Essential Fish Habitat requirements,the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources(Atlantic herring only),
explosives,pile driving,and electromagnetic devices may have a minimal and temporary adverse effect on the fishes that
occupy water column Essential Fish Habitat
Alternative 1:The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 1,but the types of impacts would be the same
as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase,impacts on fish under Alternative 1 are not expected to decrease the overall
fitness of any fish population.
Alternative 2(Preferred Alternative):The number of individual impacts may increase under Altemative 2,but the types of
impacts would be the same as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase,impacts on fish under Alternative 2 are not
expected to decrease the overall fitness of any fish population.
ESA:Endangered Species Act
ES•16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-1:Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and Alternative 2(Continued)
Re®ouroeCategory ,� ' ' ' ,.<C ryof,(mpacte�l 'i777777, 'Cultural Resources No Action Alternative:The Navy considered all potential stressors and the following have been analyzed:acoustic
(3.10) (underwater explosions,sonic booms,and cratering from underwater detonations)and physical disturbance and strike(use of
seafioor devices and deposition of military expended materials).Acoustic and physical disturbance and strike stressors would
not affect submerged prehistoric sites and submerged historic resources in accordance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act because measures were previously implemented to protect these resources.
Alternative 1:The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 1,but the types of impacts would be the same
as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase in activities under Altemative 1,acoustic and physical disturbance and strike
stressors would not affect submerged prehistoric sites and submerged historic resources in accordance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act because measures were previously implemented to protect these resources.
Alternative 2(Preferred Alternative):The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 2,but the types of
impacts would be the same as the No Action Altemative.Despite the increase in activities under Alternative 2,acoustic and
physical disturbance and strike stressors would not affect submerged prehistoric sites and submerged historic resources in
accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act because measures were previously implemented to
protect these resources.
Socioeconomic Resources No Action Alternative:The Navy considered all potential stressors and the following have been analyzed:accessibility
(3.11) (availability of access on the ocean and in the air);airborne acoustics(weapons firing,aircraft,and vessel noise);physical
disturbance and strikes(aircraft,vessels and in-water devices,military expended materials);and secondary impacts from
availability of resources.Impacts would be short term and temporary.Therefore,impacts on socioeconomic resources would be
negligible.
1 Alternative 1:The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 1,but the types of impacts would be the same
as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase in activity under Alternative 1,impacts to socioeconomic resources would still
be considered short term and temporary.Therefore,impacts on socioeconomic resources would be negligible.
Alternative 2(Preferred Alternative):The number of individual impacts may increase under Alternative 2,but the types of
impacts would be the same as the No Action Alternative.Despite the increase in activity under Alternative 2,impacts to
socioeconomic resources would still be considered short term and temporary.Therefore,impacts on socioeconomic resources
would be negligible.
Public Health and Safety No Action Alternative:The Navy considered all potential stressors and the following have been analyzed:underwater energy;
(3.12) in-air energy;physical interactions;and indirect impacts from sediment and water quality changes.Because of the Navy's
standard operating procedures,impacts on public health and safety would be unlikely.
Alternative 1:Despite the increase in activities under Alternative 1,Navy safety procedures would continue to prevent
proposed activities being co-located with public activities.Because of the Navy's safety procedures,the potential for activities
to impact public health and safety under Alternative 1 would be unlikely.
Alternative 2(Preferred Alternative):Despite the increase in activities under Altemative 2,Navy safety procedures would
continue to prevent proposed activities being co-located with public activities.Because of the Navy's safety procedures,the
potential for activities to impact public health and safety under Alternative 2 would be unlikely.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-17
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
ES.7 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES, MITIGATION,AND MONITORING
Within the Study Area,the Navy implements standard operating procedures, mitigation,and monitoring
efforts during the Proposed Action. Navy standard operating procedures have the indirect benefit of
reducing potential impacts on marine resources. Mitigation measures are designed to help reduce or
avoid potential impacts on marine resources. Marine species monitoring efforts are designed to track
compliance with take authorizations,evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures,and improve
understanding of the impacts of training and testing activities on marine resources.
ES.7.1 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
The Navy currently employs standard practices to provide for the safety of personnel and equipment,
including vessels and aircraft, as well as the success of the training and testing activities. In many cases
there are incidental environmental,socioeconomic,and cultural benefits resulting from standard
operating procedures.Standard operating procedures serve the primary purpose of providing for safety
and mission success,and are implemented regardless of their secondary benefits.This is what
distinguishes standard operating procedures,which are a component of the Proposed Action,from
mitigation measures,which are designed entirely for the purpose of reducing environmental impacts
resulting from the Proposed Action. Because of their importance for maintaining safety and mission
success,standard operating procedures have been considered as part of the Proposed Action under
each alternative,and therefore are included in the Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental
Consequences)environmental analyses for each resource.
ES.7.2 MITIGATION
The Navy recognizes that the Proposed Action has the potential to impact the environment. Unlike
standard operating procedures,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 Navy
undertook two assessment steps for each recommended mitigation measure(Step 1 is an effectiveness
assessment and Step 2 is an operational assessment).Table ES-2 summarizes the Navy's recommended
mitigation measures with currently implemented mitigation measures for each activity category also
summarized in the table.These measures have been coordinated with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service through the consultation and permitting processes.The Record of Decision for this
EIS/OEIS will address any additional mitigation measures that may result from ongoing regulatory
processes.
ES.7.3 MITIGATION MEASURES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED
A number of mitigation measures were suggested during the public comment periods for this EIS/OEIS
or previous Navy environmental documents.As a result of the assessment process,the Navy determined
that some of the suggested measures would likely be ineffective at reducing environmental impacts,
have an unacceptable operational impact based on the operational assessment,or would be
incompatible with Section 5.2.2,Overview of Mitigation Approach.
ES.7.4 MONITORING
The Navy is committed to demonstrating environmental stewardship while executing its National
Defense Mission and complying with the suite of federal environmental laws and regulations.As a
complement to the Navy's commitment to avoiding and reducing impacts of the Proposed Action
through mitigation,the Navy will undertake monitoring efforts to track compliance with take
ES-18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
authorizations, help evaluate the effectiveness of implemented mitigation measures, and gain a better
understanding of the impacts of the Proposed Action on marine resources.Taken together, mitigation
and monitoring comprise the Navy's integrated approach for reducing environmental impacts from the
Proposed Action.The Navy's overall monitoring approach will seek to leverage and build on existing
research efforts whenever possible.
Consistent with the cooperating agency agreement with NMFS, mitigation and monitoring measures
presented in this Final EIS/OEIS focus on the requirements for protection and management of marine
resources. Discussions with resource agencies during the consultation and permitting processes may
result in changes to the mitigation as described in this document.Such changes will be reflected in the
Record of Decision and consultation documents such as the ESA Biological Opinion.
The Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program is intended to coordinate monitoring efforts across
all regions where the Navy trains and to allocate the most appropriate level and type of effort for each
range complex.The current Navy monitoring program is composed of a collection of"range-specific"
monitoring plans, each of which was developed individually as part of MMPA and ESA compliance
processes as environmental documentation was completed.These individual plans establish specific
monitoring requirements for each range complex or testing range and are collectively intended to
address the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program top-level goals.A Scientific Advisory Group
of leading marine mammal scientists developed recommendations that would serve as the basis for a
Strategic Plan for Navy monitoring.The Strategic Plan is intended to be a primary component of the
Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program and provide a "vision"for Navy monitoring across
geographic regions—serving as guidance for determining how to most efficiently and effectively invest
the marine species monitoring resources to address Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program top-
level goals and satisfy MMPA regulatory requirements.The objective of the Strategic Plan is to continue
the evolution of Navy marine species monitoring towards a single integrated program, incorporating
Scientific Advisory Group recommendations,and establishing a more transparent framework for
soliciting, evaluation, and implementing monitoring work across the Fleet range complexes.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-19
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-2:Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures
Activky Categ6ry ors ,`', Recoinmenileti Lookouts '1 Recommended Midgatlon Zone ands '
MkHgetlon Area„, „Procedural Maasure,,' , ',;Protection Focus%;, „i Current Maesure and Protectlon Focus%f
Specialized Training Lookouts will complete the The mitigation zones observed by Lookouts The mitigation zones observed by Lookouts
Introduction to the U.S.Navy Afloat are specified for each Mitigation Zone are specified for each Mitigation Zone
Environmental Compliance Training Procedural Measure below. Procedural Measure below.
Series and the U.S.Navy Marine
Species Awareness Training or
civilian equivalent
Low-Frequency and 2 Lookouts(general) Sources that can be powered down:1,000 yd. Hull-mounted mid-frequency:1,000 yd.
Hull-Mounted Mid- 1 Lookout(minimally manned, (914 m)and 500 yd.(457 m)power downs (914 m)and 500 yd.(457 m)power downs
Frequency Active Sonar moored,or anchored) and 200 yd.(183 m)shutdown for marine and 200 yd.(183 m)shutdown for marine
during Anti-Submarine mammals(hull-mounted mid-frequency and mammals and sea turtles;avoidance of
Warfare and Mine low-frequency)and sea turtles(low-frequency Sargassum rafts.
Warfare only). Low-frequency:None
Sources that cannot be powered down:
200 yd.(183 m)shutdown for marine
mammals and sea turtles.
Both:observation for concentrations of floating
vegetation(Sargassum or kelp paddies).
High-Frequency and 1 Lookout 200 yd.(183 m)for marine mammals(high- Non-hull mounted mid-frequency:200 yd.
Non-Hull Mounted Mid- frequency and mid-frequency),sea turtles (183 m)for marine mammals,floating
Frequency Active Sonar (bins MF8,MF9,MF10,and MF12 only),and vegetation,and kelp paddies.
concentrations of floating vegetation High-frequency:None
(Sargassum or kelp paddies).
Improved Extended 1 Lookout 600 yd.(549 m)for marine mammals,sea 1,000 yd.(914 m)for marine mammals and
Echo Ranging turtles,and concentrations of floating sea turtles;400 yd.(366 m)for floating
Sonobuoys vegetation(Sargassum or kelp paddies). vegetation and kelp paddies.
Passive acoustic monitoring conducted with Passive acoustic monitoring conducted with
Navy assets participating in the activity. Navy assets participating in the activity.
Explosive Sonobuoys 1 Lookout 350 yd.(320 m)for marine mammals,sea None
Using 0.6-2.5 Pound turtles,and concentrations of floating
NEW vegetation(Sargassum or kelp paddies).
Passive acoustic monitoring conducted with
Navy assets participating in the activity.
Anti-Swimmer 1 Lookout 200 yd.(183 m)for marine mammals,sea 200 yd.(183 m)for marine mammals,sea
Grenades turtles,and concentrations of floating turtles,floating vegetation,and kelp
vegetation(Sargassum or kelp paddies). paddies.
m:meter,NEW:net explosive weight;yd yard
ES-20 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-2:Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures(Continued)
Activlty,C�tegory ors Recommended Lookout Recommended Mltlgation�Zone ands
i1b.
=mammals
d Proteotlon FocusMk1gApo"'n reap , '', "PrOcedUralMeaaure ,�,Mine Countermeasure General:1 or 2 Lookouts(NEW Both:NEW dependent for marine mammals, dent for marineand Neutralization dependent) sea turtles,and concentrations of floating rtles.Activities Using Positive Diver-placed:2 Lookouts vegetation(Sargassum or kelp paddies). (640 m)for up toControl Firing Devices Both:350 yd.(320 m)from surveyed shallow mammals and
Protective Measures Assessment coral reefs,live hard bottom,artificial reefs,and turtles.
Protocol will contain maps of shipwrecks.
surveyed shallow coral reefs, Both:1,000 ft.(305 m)from surveyed live
artificial reefs,shipwrecks,and live Both:1 nm from beach in the VACAPES Range hard bottom,artificial reefs,and
hard bottom. Complex and 3,000 ft.(914 m)around shipwrecks.
Fisherman Island for birds. Both:1 nm from beach and 3,000 fL
Diver-placed:3.2 nm from an estuarine inlet (914 m)around Fisherman Island in the
and 1.6 nm from shoreline within the Navy VACAPES Range Complex for birds.
Cherry Point Range Complex for sea turtles. Diver-placed:3.2 nm from estuarine inlet
and 1.6 nm from shoreline in VACAPES,
Navy Cherry Point,and JAX Range
Complexes for sea turtles.
Mine Neutralization 4 Lookouts Up to 10 min.time-delay using up to 20 lb. 10 min.time-day on 20 lb.NEW:
Activities Using Diver- NEW:1,000 yd.(915 m)for marine mammals, 1,450 yd.(1.3 km)for marine mammals
Protective Measures Assessment
{ Placed Time-Delay protocol will contain maps of sea turtles,and concentrations of floating and sea turtles.
Firing Devices surveyed shallow coral reefs, vegetation(Sargassum or kelp paddies).
artificial reefs,shipwrecks,and live 350 yd.(320 m)for surveyed shallow coral
hard bottom. reefs,live hard bottom,artificial reefs,and
shipwrecks.
1 nm from beach in the VACAPES Range
Complex and 3,000 ft.(914 m)around
Fisherman Island for birds.
3.2 nm from an estuarine inlet and 1.6 nm from
shoreline within the Navy Cherry Point Range
Complex for sea turtles.
it:,:feet;JAX!:Jacksonville::km:kilometer,lb.:pound;m:meter;min.:.minute;NEW:net explosive weight;nm:nautical mile„yd.:yard;VACAPES.Virginia Capes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-21
Y
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-2:Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures(Continued)
Mlti aUon°Area,'%�, ;, Procedures Mea okout�i Recommended MlUgatlon Zone and ProtectlonMi
Activity Category on ' Recommended L . l
g, r,�„ a aiure!o,, Currerrt Measuro and Protection FOCU$J
Explosive and Non- 1 Lookout 200 yd.(183 m)for marine mammals,sea turtles,and 200 yd.(183 m)for marine mammals,sea
Explosive Gunnery concentrations of floating vegetation(Sargassum or turtles,floating vegetation,and surveyed
M cti teve Measures Exercises—Small-and Pro kelp paddies). shallow coral reefs.
Medium-Caliber Using a Assessment Protocol will
Surface Target contain maps of surveyed 350 yd.(320 m)for surveyed shallow coral reefs.
shallow coral reefs.
Explosive and Non- 1 Lookout Explosive:600 yd.(549 m)for marine mammals,sea Explosive:600 yd.(549 m)for marine
Explosive Gunnery turtles,and concentrations of floating vegetation mammals,sea turtles,floating vegetation,
Exercises—Large- Protective Measures
g (Sargassum or kelp paddies). and surveyed shallow coral reefs.
Caliber Using a Surface Assessment Protocol will
Target contain maps of surveyed Non-Explosive:200 yd.(183 m)for marine mammals, Non-Explosive:200 yd.(183 m)for
shallow coral reefs. sea turtles,and concentrations of floating vegetation marine mammals,sea turtles,and
(Sargassum or kelp paddies). concentrations of floating vegetation
Both:70 yd.(64 m)within 30 degrees on either side of (Sargassum or kelp paddies).
the gun target line on the firing side for marine Both:70 yd.(64 m)around entire ship for
mammals,sea turtles,and concentrations of floating marine mammals and sea turtles.
vegetation(Sargassum or kelp paddies).
Both:350 yd.(320 m)for surveyed shallow coral reefs.
Non-Explosive Missile 1 Lookout 900 yd.(823 m)for marine mammals,sea turtles,and 1,800 yd.(1.6 km)for marine mammals,
Exercises and Explosive protective M concentrations of floating vegetation(Sargassum or sea turtles,floating vegetation,and kelp
easures
Missile Exercises kelp paddies). paddies.
(Including Rockets)up to Assessment Protocol will
250 Pound NEW Using contain maps of surveyed 350 yd.(320 m)for surveyed shallow coral reefs.
a Surface Target shallow coral reefs.
Explosive Missile 1 Lookout 2,000 yd.(1.8 km)for marine mammals,sea turtles, None
Exercises Using 251— Protective M and concentrations of floating vegetation(Sargassum or
rotecveeasures
500 Pound NEW Using kelp paddies).
a Surface Target Assessment Protocol will
contain maps of surveyed 350 yd.(320 m)for surveyed shallow coral reefs.
shallow coral reefs.
km:kilometer,lb. pound;m:meter,NEW:net explosive weight;yd. yard
ES-22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-2:Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures(Continued)
i f i
i /i Recommendedi�
Activity Categoryrora`, LookoutProcedurahr Recommended Mitigatlan Zone andi Current Measure.and Protection Focua
Mitigation Are �,� / �ii PI'ObBCUOn FocuarD i
%/r,,,,,i, r, r!/i,
Explosive and Non- 1 Lookout Explosive:2,500 yd.(2.3 km)for marine Explosive:5,100 yd.(4.7 km)for marine mammals,
Explosive Bombing protective Measures mammals,sea turtles,and concentrations of sea turtles,and floating vegetation.
Exercises Assessment Protocol will floating vegetation(Sargassum or kelp Non-Explosive:1,000 yd.(914 m)for marine
contain maps of paddies). mammals,sea turtles,floating vegetation,and kelp
surveyed shallow coral Non-Explosive:1,000 yd.(914 m)for marine paddies.
reefs. mammals,sea turtles,and concentrations of
floating vegetation(Sargassum or kelp
paddies).
Both:350 yd.(320 m)for surveyed shallow
coral reefs.
Torpedo(Explosive)Testing 1 Lookout 2.100 yd.(1.9 km)for marine mammals,sea 5,063 yd.(4.6 km)for marine mammals,sea
turtles,concentrations of floating vegetation turtles,floating vegetation,and jellyfish
(Sargassum or kelp paddies),and jellyfish aggregations.
aggregations. Passive acoustic monitoring conducted with Navy
Passive acoustic monitoring conducted with assets participating in the activity.
Navy assets participating in the activity.
Sinking Exercises 2 Lookouts 2.5 nm for marine mammals,sea turtles, 4.5 nm for marine mammals and sea turtles.
concentrations of floating vegetation
(Sargassum or kelp paddies),and jellyfish 2.5 nm for floating vegetation and jellyfish
aggregations. aggregations.
Passive acoustic monitoring conducted with Passive acoustic monitoring conducted with Navy
Navy assets participating in the activity. assets participating in the activity.
At-Sea Explosive Testing 1 Lookout 1,600 yd.(1.4 km)for marine mammals,sea None
Protective Measures turtles,and concentrations of floating
Assessment Protocol will vegetation(Sargassum or kelp paddies).
contain maps of 350 yd.(320 m)for surveyed shallow coral
surveyed shallow coral reefs.
reefs.
Ordnance Testing—Line 1 Lookout 900 yd.(823 m)for marine mammals,sea 880 yd.(805 m)for marine mammals and sea
Charge Testing turtles,and concentrations of floating turtles.
vegetation(Sargassum or kelp paddies).
0.5 mi.(0.8 km)for Gulf sturgeon.
km:kilometer,Ib.:pound;m:meter,mi:,mile;nm:nautical mile;yd...yard
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-23
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2023)
Table ES-2:Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures(Continued)
'Activky C ategory orA Recommendedy,Lookout : ` Recommended MitlgatiQn Zone andy� ` �;
i i Current Measure end Protection Focua
Miti ation�Area� ProCedurel°Measure� Protaction;Fooua'%
8 ,wo�,.� n,. i „ , i
Ship Shock Trials At least 10 Lookouts or 10,000 lb.and 40,000 lb.charge:3.5 nm for 10,000 lb.charge:3 nm/3.5 nm for VACAPES/
trained marine species all locations for marine mammals,sea turtles, JAX for marine mammals,sea turtles,floating
observers(or combination) concentrations of floating vegetation vegetation,jellyfish aggregations,large schools of
(Sargassum or kelp paddies),jellyfish fish,and flocks of seabirds.
aggregations,large schools offish,and flocks of seabirds. 40,000 lb.charge:None.
Elevated Causeway 1 Lookout 60 yd.(55 m)for marine mammals,sea None
System—Pile Driving turtles,and concentrations of floating
vegetation(Sargassum or kelp paddies).
Vessel Movements 1 Lookout 500 yd.(457 m)for whales. 500 yd.(457 m)for whales.
200 yd.(183 m)for all other marine mammals 200 yd.(183 m)for all other marine mammals
(except bow riding dolphins). (except bow riding dolphins).
Towed In-Water Device 1 Lookout 250 yd.(229 m)for marine mammals. 250 yd.(229 m)for marine mammals.
Use
Precision Anchoring No Lookouts in addition to Avoidance of precision anchoring within the Avoidance of precision anchoring within the anchor
standard personnel anchor swing diameter of surveyed shallow watch circle diameter of surveyed shallow coral
standing watch coral reefs,live hard bottom,artificial reefs, reefs,live hard bottom,artificial reefs,and
Protective Measures and shipwrecks. shipwrecks.
Assessment Protocol will
contain maps of surveyed
shallow coral reefs,
artificial reefs,shipwrecks,
and live hard bottom
North Atlantic Right Whale Activity-specific measures Avoidance or minimization of conduct of Avoidance or minimization of conduct of speck
Calving Habitat off the described in the Lookout speck activities seasonally. activities seasonally.
Southeast United States Procedural Measures and Mitigation Zone Procedural Use Early Warning System sightings data. Use Early Warning System sightings data.
Measures
JAX,Jacksonville;km:kilometer,Ib.'.pound;m:meter;nm:nautical mile;VACAPES:Virginia Capes;yd. yard
ES-24 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-2:Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures(Continued)
ActlYlt)f,Category Recommended s Recgmm en ded Midgalton Zon
e and
Mitigation A 11
rea j LookoMeaaure durai/,i „ Protection %1 Current Measur®and Protection Focuse w,r
.. ;,,, ;, .ire ... i,,,,,,. i,r /.,,.�/ ,,,,�, ,,,,,i[. ,ci,. ci, ,✓ ,,, „�%
North Atlantic Right Whale 3 Lookouts during Avoidance or minimization of conduct of Avoidance or minimization of conduct of speck
Foraging Habitat off the torpedo(non-explosive) specific activities seasonally.Use Sighting activities seasonally.Use Sighting Advisory
Northeast testing activities Advisory System sightings data. System sightings data.
All other activity-specific Specific measures for torpedo(non- Conduct torpedo(non-explosive)testing activities
measures described in explosive)testing activities year-round. in five designated areas seasonally.
the Lookout Procedural
Measures and Mitigation Submit written requests prior to conducting hull-
Zone Procedural mounted surface and submarine active sonar
Measures training or helicopter dipping in the mitigation area.
North Atlantic Right Whale 1 Lookout Practice increased vigilance,exercise Practice increased vigilance,exercise extreme
Mid-Atlantic Migration extreme caution,and proceed at the slowest caution,and proceed at the slowest speed that is
Corridor speed that is consistent with safety,mission, consistent with safety,mission,and training and
and training and testing objectives. testing objectives.
West Indian Manatee Activity-specific Mayport,Florida:Comply with all federal, Mayport,Florida:Comply with all federal,state,
Habitat measures described in state,and local Manatee Protection Zones; and local Manatee Protection Zones;sightings
the Lookout Procedural sightings communication. communication.
Measures and Mitigation Port Canaveral,Florida:Pierside sonar Port Canaveral,Florida:Pierside sonar
Zone Procedural Measures observations and sightings communication. observations and sightings communication.
Kings Bay,Georgia:Pierside sonar Kings Bay,Georgia:Pierside sonar observations
observations and sightings communication. and sightings communication.
Camp Lejeune,North Carolina:Pile driving Camp Lejeune,North Carolina:None
observations and sightings log.
Planning Awareness Areas Activity-specific Limit planning major active sonar exercises. Limit planning major active sonar exercises.
measures described in
the Lookout Procedural
Measures and Mitigation
Zone Procedural
Measures
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-2S
ATLANTIC FLEETTRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-2:Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures(Continued)
Recommended%%b/ o v;
AcMitaUon� Lookout Procedural; Recommended Mltlgatlon Zone and/ 2 uMe
9 asure and Protection Focus i
,.,,a; i o, „, ,,,,,r„MB88u►9�%/, ¢G�;%�,,,.i,,,.. s.,v, ,�� ,% it i,,„da,r „„ ,1, r 1 i i /f �/ar,
Shallow Coral Reefs,Hard No Lookouts in addition No precision anchoring within the anchor Varying mitigation zone distances based on
bottom Habitat,Artificial to standard personnel swing diameter and no explosive mine marine mammal ranges to effects.
Reefs,and Shipwrecks standing watch countermeasure and neutralization activities
Protective Measures within 350 yd.(320 m)of surveyed shallow
Assessment Protocol will coral reefs,live hard bottom,artificial reefs,
and shipwrecks.
contain maps of
surveyed shallow coral No explosive or non-explosive small-,
reefs,artificial reefs, medium-,and large-caliber gunnery exercises
shipwrecks,and live hard using a surface target;explosive or non-
bottom explosive missile exercises using a surface
target;explosive or non-explosive bombing
exercises;or at-sea explosive testing within
350 yd.(320 m)of surveyed shallow coral
reefs.
Live Hard bottom and No Lookouts in addition Anchors and Mine-like Objects:Installation of Anchors and Mine-like Objects:Installation of
Shallow Coral Reefs within to standard personnel anchors and mine-like objects are conducted anchors and mine-like objects are conducted using
South Florida Ocean standing watch using real-time GIS and GPS,along with real-time GIS and GPS,along with groundtruth
Measurement Facility groundtruth and verification support,which and verification support,which will help the Navy
Protective Measures will help the Navy avoid sensitive marine avoid sensitive marine species and communities
Assessment Protocol will species and communities during deployment, during deployment,installation,and recovery.
contain maps of installation,and recovery.
surveyed shallow coral Bottom Crawling Unmanned Underwater Vehicles:
reefs and live hard Bottom Crawling Unmanned Underwater None
bottom Vehicles:If deployment occurs greater than
9.8 ft.(3 m)in depth,it will be conducted
using real-time GIS and GPS,along with
groundtruth and verification support,which
will help the Navy avoid sensitive marine
s atlas and communities.
ft. feet;GIS:Geographic Information System;GPS:Global Positioning System;m:meter,yd. yard
ES-26 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table ES-2:Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures(Continued)
%Recommeridedr„' r „
AcflvH�/Category orir Recommended gation Zone andrj, %,Currerrt Measure and Protection Focus
Lookout Procedurau� �r
Mitigation Area o rotection Focue� i
Sea Turtle Nesting Habitat Activity-specific Naval Surface Warfare Center,Panama City Naval Surface Warfare Center,Panama City
measures described in Division:Sea turtle nesting season is defined Division:Sea turtle nesting season is defined as
the Lookout Procedural as from March through September, from May through September;Avoidance of
Measures and Mitigation Avoidance of ordnance testing—line charge electromagnetic mine countermeasure and
Zone Procedural testing activities during the night during neutralization activities within 32 yd.(30 m)of
Measures nesting season. shore during nesting season;Avoidance of
ordnance testing—line charge testing activities
Navy Cherry Point Range Complex:Positive (day and night)during nesting season.
control and time-delay diver-placed mine
neutralization and countermeasure activities VACAPES,Navy Cherry Point,and JAX Range
remain 3.2 nm from estuarine inlets and Complexes:Positive control diver-placed mine
1.6 nm from shoreline from March through neutralization and countermeasure activities
September. remain 3.2 nm from estuarine inlets and 1.6 nm
from shoreline.
Piping Plover Habitat in Activity-specific 1 nm from beach in VACAPES Range 1 nm from beach in VACAPES Range Complex
Virginia measures described in Complex and 3,000 ft(914 m)around and 3,000 ft.(914 m)around Fisherman Island
the Lookout Procedural Fisherman Island during positive control and during positive control diver-placed mine
Measures and Mitigation time-delay diver-placed mine neutralization neutralization and countermeasure activities.
Zone Procedural and countermeasure activities.
Measures
Gulf Sturgeon Habitat in the Activity-specific No ordnance testing—line charge testing No ordnance testing—line charge testing activities
Gulf of Mexico measures described in activities will occur within nearshore Gulf of will occur within nearshore Gulf of Mexico waters
the Lookout Procedural Mexico waters in Escambia,Santa Rosa, in Escambia,Santa Rosa,Okaloosa,Walton,Bay,
Measures and Mitigation Okaloosa,Walton,Bay,and Gulf counties in and Gulf counties in Florida from the shoreline to
Zone Procedural Florida from the shoreline to 1 mi.(1.6 km) 1 mi.(1.6 km)offshore between October and
Measures offshore between October and March(except March.
within the designated line charge testing
location on Santa Rosa Island).
ft.:feet;JAX:Jacksonville;km:kilometer,m:meter,mi.:mile;nm:nautical mile;VACAPES:Virginia Capes;yd. yard
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-27
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
ES.7.5 REPORTING
The Navy is committed to documenting and reporting relevant aspects of training and testing activities
in order to document species sightings, reduce environmental impact,and improve future
environmental assessments. Initiatives include exercise and monitoring reporting,stranding response
plan, bird strikes,and manatee reporting.
ES.8 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
ES.8.1 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL,AND LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES,
AND REGULATIONS
Based on an evaluation of consistency with statutory obligations,the Navy's proposed training and
testing activities would not conflict with the objectives or requirements of federal,state, regional or
local plans, policies, or legal requirements.The Navy consulted with regulatory agencies as appropriate
during the NEPA process and before implementing the Proposed Action to ensure that all legal
requirements are met.
In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act,the Navy reviewed the enforceable policies of
each state and territory's federally-approved Coastal Zone Management Plan relevant to the Study Area.
There are 18 states(Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island,South
Carolina,Texas,and Virginia)and two U.S.territories (Puerto Rico and U.S.Virgin Islands)whose coastal
zones could be affected by the Proposed Action. Based on an evaluation of the effects of the Proposed
Action discussed in this EIS/OEIS and the enforceable policies of each state and territory's Coastal Zone
Management Plan,and pursuant to 15 C.F.R. §930.39,the Navy prepared consistency determinations
for the affected states and territories.
Many areas of the marine environment have some level of federal,state,or local management or
protection. Marine protected areas vary widely in purpose, managing agencies, management
approaches, level of protection,and restrictions on human uses.The levels of protection provided by
these marine protected areas range from fully protected reserves (i.e., no take of any species is
permitted)to sites allowing multiple uses, including fishing, recreation,and industrial uses (National
Marine Protected Areas Center 2008). EO 13158, Marine Protected Areas, requires each federal agency
whose actions affect the natural or cultural resources protected by a marine protected area to identify
such actions,and in taking such actions,avoid harm to those natural and cultural resources to the
maximum extent practicable.All resources of the marine protected areas located within the Study Area
have been incorporated into the analyses in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental
Consequences). In accordance with EO 13158,the Navy has considered the potential impacts of its
proposed activities on the national system of marine protected areas that contain marine waters within
the Study Area. Management policies specific to military activities have been reviewed as well as any
area-specific prohibitions.
ES.8.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
In accordance with NEPA,this EIS/OEIS analyzes the relationship between a project's short-term impacts
on the environment and the effects that these impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement
of the long-term productivity of the affected environment.The Proposed Action could result in both
short-and long-term environmental impacts. However,these are not expected to result in any impacts
ES-28 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
that would reduce environmental productivity, permanently narrow the range of beneficial uses of the
environment,or pose long-term risks to health,safety,or general welfare of the public.
ES.8.3 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
For the Proposed Action, most resource commitments would be neither irreversible nor irretrievable.
Most impacts would be short term and temporary,or long lasting but within historical or desired
conditions. Because there would be no building or facility construction,the consumption of material
typically associated with such construction (e.g.,concrete, metal,sand,fuel)would not occur. Energy
typically associated with construction activities would not be expended and irretrievably lost.
Implementation of the Proposed Action would require fuels used by aircraft and vessels.Since fixed-and
rotary-wing aircraft and ship activities would increase relative to the baseline,total fuel use would
increase.Therefore,total fuel consumption would increase under the Proposed Action, and this
nonrenewable resource would be considered irretrievably lost.
ES.8.4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF ALTERNATIVES AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
Resources that will be permanently and continually consumed by project implementation include water,
electricity, natural gas,and fossil fuels; however,the amount and rate of consumption of these
resources would not result in significant environmental impacts or the unnecessary, inefficient,or
wasteful use of resources. Prevention of the introduction of potential contaminants is an important
component of mitigation of the alternatives'adverse impacts.To the extent practicable,considerations
to prevent the introduction of potential contaminants are included.
Sustainable range management practices are in place that protect and conserve natural and cultural
resources and preserve access to training areas for current and future training requirements while
addressing potential encroachments that threaten to impact range and training area capabilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-29
BOARD OF U I55IbES
r � Mayor David Rlce,District 4
—f Mayor Pro Tern Kim Wigington, District 1
OUNT Jo George Neugent, District 2
KEYWESTFLORIDA 33040 Heather Carruthers,District 3
(305)P94-4641 Sylvia 3. Murphy,District 5
District 4 Commission Office
Marathon Airport'rerminal Bldg.
9400 Overseas Hwy.Suite 210
Marathon,FL 33050
Ph: 305-289-6000 V
Fx:305-289-4610
Ent:boccdis4L,monroeiount -it.atav
July 9, 2012
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic
Attn: Code EV22 (AFTT EIS Project Managers)
6506 Hampton Blvd.
Norfolk, VA 23508-1278
Subject: Comments by Monroe County, Florida on the
U.S. Navy's Draft EIS/OEIS for Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing
Dear AFTT EIS Project Managers:
This letter is in response to Mr, G.L. Edwards' letter of May 7, 2012 requesting continents from Monroe
County related to the U.S. Navy's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS) for
Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) dated May 2012. We appreciate the opportunity to provide
comments on activities proposed by the Navy that could affect the citizens and natural environment of
Monroe County.
The environmental .setting of the Florida Keys is unique in the United States. in 1979, the Florida
Legislature designated Monroe County as an Area of Critical State Concern pursuant to the Florida Keys
Area Protection Act. Eleven years later, in 1990, the U.S. Congress designated all nearshore waters
surrounding the Florida Keys as a National Marine Sanctuary. Our County also includes two National
Parks, four National Wildlife Refuges, five Aquatic Preserves, nine State Parks, several other preserve
areas, and the only living coral reef in the continental United States., It is this unique environmental
setting that draws visitors nationwide to experience the Florida Keys. The citizens of Monroe County
depend on this visitor-based economy, and the citizens of the United States depend on the Florida Keys
for an escape to a natural subtropical environment.
Our elected officials and citizens support our military and recognize the importance of the training and
testing missions the military must undertake within the Atlantic Fleet Study Area. In fact, we have just
recently adopted Military Compatibility goals, objections and policies including a Military Installation
Page l of 7
Area of Impact policy that provides for a fair and effective approach on how the Naval Air Station Key
West (NAS-KW) and Monroe County will coordinate on growth and operational issues. This policy
reflects years of effort and negotiation between NAS-KW, the County, and the State of Florida. This
Comprehensive Plan amendment also included a policy discouraging an increase in operations that would
negatively impact the Surrounding community. Policy 108.1.6 of our 2010 Comprehensive Plan reads:
"The Navy is undertaking an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate alternatives for
future airfield operations at Naval Air Station Key West. Monroe County shall work closely with
the Navy throughout the process of the EIS and shall discourage the Navy from increasing its
operations at NASKW that negatively impact the surrounding community."
It is within that context of the amendments that we strive to work with the U.S. Navy to reach a balance
between supporting important national defense objectives and protecting the Florida Keys as a national
treasure.
We have reviewed the Draft EIS/OEIS and are very concerned about the potential impacts of Alternatives
I and 2 on Monroe County, and there are some parts of the Draft EIS/OEIS that do not provide detail for
us to sufficiently assess the impacts. Monroe County respectfully requests that the Navy provide
additional information that will help facilitate a better understanding of the potential impacts.
Specifically, please provide the County with a response to the questions below. This response should be
utilized to clarify the Final EIS/OEIS and to address the County's concerns.
1. Number of Takeoffs and Landings at NAS-KW: According to page 2-79 of the Draft
EIS/OEIS, the number of Air Combat Maneuver (ACM) events in the Key West Range Complex
ranges from 5,700 events for No Action to 6,840 events for Alternative 2. According to page 3.0-
27, the number of events including aircraft movement in the Key West Range Complex (including
but not limited to ACM, FLAREX, and CHAFFEX events) ranges from 9,646 events for No
Action to 10,881 events for Alternative 2. Given that multiple aircraft may be involved in one
event, and that multiple events may be completed during a single flight, and that the takeoffs and
landings may occur at NAS-KW, aircraft carriers, or other locations; it is not clear how the number
of events translates into the number of takeoffs and landings at NAS-KW. Provide the number of
takeoffs and landings at NAS-KW under each alternative, including the current NAS-KW baseline.
2. Effect of F-35 and FIA-18E/F Super Hornet on Socioeconomic Resources: At the Key West
Range Complex, the difference in Air Combat Maneuver (ACM) events between the No Action
and Preferred Alternative is described as an increase in the number of events (20% increase). But
the EIS/OEIS does not appear to evaluate the change in the types of aircraft used. According to
page A-2, Air Combat Maneuver (ACM) events will be conducted using F-35, F/A-18, and F-5
aircraft. Provide an analysis of the effects of the introduction of F-35 takeoffs and landings at
NAS-KW on local socioeconomic resources including but not limited to noise effects on the
surrounding community and tourism. Also, in the Navy's 2003 Final Environmental Impact
Statement .for the Introduction of the F/A-18E/F Super -Hornet Airport to the East Coast of the
United States, the impacts resulting from FIA-18E/F Super Hornet operations at NAS-KW were
not discussed.. Therefore, the No Action baseline in the A.FTT Draft E:IS/OEIS should not include
the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Provide an analysis of the effects of F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
takeoffs and landings at NAS-KW on local socioeconomic resources including but not limited to
noise effects on the surrounding community and tourism.
3. Number of F-35 Takeoffs and Landings at NAS-KW: According to page 2-71, the F-35 is
projected to make up about one-third of the Navy's strike fighter inventory by 2020. According to
Puge 2 of 7
page A-2, Air Combat Maneuver(ACM) events would be conducted using F-35 and other aircraft.
According to page 3.0-27, the number of events including aircraft movement in the Key West
Range Complex (including but not limited to ACM, FLAREX, and CHAFFEX events) ranges
from 9,646 for No Action to 10,881 events for Alternative 2. In the Key West Range Complex for
each alternative, how many of the events involving aircraft would include F-35 aircraft, and how
many F-35 takeoffs and landings would occur at NAS-KW.
4. Timing of Increases at NAS-KW: According to pages 2-76, 2-79, and 3.5-93, the number of Air
Combat Maneuver(ACM) events in the Key West Range Complex under the Preferred Alternative
would increase from 5,700 to 6,840 events/yr, a 20% increase, in support of proposed increase in
utilization of NAS-KW. Describe when the increase in takeoffs and landings would occur,
including the time of day that the increased flights would occur (morning, day, evening, night), the
days of the week that the increased flights would occur (weekdays, weekends), and the seasons
that the increased flights would occur.
5. Amount of Activity Perceptible to Public: In the Key West Range Complex for each alternative,
quantify how much activity (including but not limited to aircraft overflights, ACMs, flares, chaff,
air to air missile explosions, CSSQT gunnery, sonobuoy explosions, mine neutralization EOD
explosions, etc.) would be visible or audible to the public on the land, and how much activity
would be visible or audible to the public offshore (including recreational and commercial
mariners). This should include, but not be limited to, any nighttime use of flares, mine
neutralization EOD activities on Demolition Key, and whether Navy activities could affect
navigational aides such as GPS used by the public. It should also include an estimate of the
greatest distance at which explosions (air to air missile explosions, CSSQT high explosive large-
caliber rounds, sonobuoy explosions, mine neutralization EOD explosions) and gunnery firing
(medium-caliber and high-caliber rounds)can be seen or heard.
6. Quantify Restrictions to the Public: In the Key West Range Complex for each alternative,
quantify any additional restrictions (areal extent, frequency of closure, type of access) to the public
including commercial or recreational fishermen, aviators,divers, boaters,etc,due to the increase in
ACMs, GUNEX A-A, MISSILEX A-A, mine neutralization EOD, sonobuoy lot acceptance tests,
CSSQT events, special warfare, or other proposed activities.
7. Public Health and Safety: Page 3.12-12 (for Alternative 1 and page 3.12-13 for Alternative 2)
states there will be an "increase" in active sonar testing activities and an "increase" in testing
activities involving underwater explosions in the Key West OPAREA and other places, and states
that Alternatives I and 2 would "adjust locations and tempo' of the testing. But the term
"increase" is an understatement for the Key West Range Complex because there would be entirely
new activities including exploding sonobuoy lot acceptance tests, CSSQT large caliber high
explosive projectiles, mine neutralization EOD charges, high explosive air-to-air missiles, etc.
Provide a public health and safety analysis specifically for these completely new activities in the
Key West Range Complex. In addition to explosives and projectiles, include an assessment of
unexploded ordnance..
8. Other Branches of the Nlilitary: The Draft EIS/OEIS refers to Navy activities, but does not
mention other branches of the military. This is in contrast to the 2009 Final EA/OEA for the Key
West Range Complex, which quantifies activities not just by the Navy, but also by the Air Force
and Air National Guard. Clarify whether the numbers of events in the AFTT Draft EIS/OEIS are
for the Navy only, or if they also include other branches of the military. Provide total numbers for
the Key West Range Complex regardless of the branch of military.
Page 3 of 7
9. Avoidance Analysis for Explosions: The Preferred Alternative proposes explosions in the Key
West Range Complex. Explosions are not in the current baseline, so this would be a completely
new type of activity in the area. The explosions would be associated with air to air missile
exercises, mine neutralization EOD, sonobuoy lot acceptance tests, and CSSQT events. Given the
environmentally sensitive nature of the area (particularly the only living coral reef tract in the
continental United States), it is not appropriate to initiate a new activity such as explosions without
a site-specific analysis of the environmental consequences. Please provide that site-specific
analysis, Further, provide an avoidance analysis to evaluate if the environmental impacts can be
avoided or minimized by performing the explosions in a different range complex.
10. Avoidance Analysis for Military Expended Materials: The Preferred Alternative proposes a
new type of military expended material in the Key West Range Complex: debris from 1,512
explosive sonobuoys and 3,120 non-explosive sonobuoys per year. Given the environmentally
sensitive nature of the Keys (particularly the only living coral reef tract in the continental United
States), it is not appropriate to dispose of a new type of debris without a site-specific analysis of
the environmental consequences. Please provide that site-specific analysis. Further, provide an
avoidance analysis to evaluate if the environmental impacts can be avoided or minimized by
performing the sonobuoy testing in a different range complex.
11, Expansion of Areas within the Key West Range Complex: Page 2-67 states that the Preferred
Alternative will "Expand areas within the VACAPES, Navy Cherry Point, JAX, and Key West
Range Complexes where anti-air warfare events, such as air combat maneuvers and gunnery and
missile exercises, would be conducted in order to allow for greater operational flexibility."
Describe how areas within the Key West Range Complex would be expanded and provide
associated maps showing baseline and proposed areas.
12. Shift Operations Farther Offshore: Some parts of the Key West OPAREA and Special Use
Airspace are close to the islands of the Florida Keys, and parts of the Special Use Airspace are
above areas frequently used by the public (e.g., W-174 is above the route often taken between Key
West and the Dry Tortugas). Provide an avoidance and minimization analysis for shifting Navy
activities farther offshore to offset the proposed increase in activities in the Key West Range
Complex.
13. FKNNIS Prohibitiotes: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS') general prohibitions
include, but are not limited to, removal or injury of coral or live rock, alteration of the seabed, and
discharge or deposit of most materials. Page 6-12 states that prohibitions (for the FKNMS) do not
apply to existing classes of DoD military activities conducted prior to the effective date of
Sanctuary regulations as identified in the EIS and Management Plan for the Sanctuary (15 C.F.R. §
922.163(d)(1)), and that new military activities in the Sanctuary are allowed and may be exempted
from the prohibitions summarized after consultation between the Director and the Navy, Further
clarify what activities would occur within the FKNMS, and specifically identify those activities
that would violate FKNMS general prohibitions if the Navy were not exempt.
14. Sonar Within FKNMS: Page A-200 indicates Special Warfare, which may include Submarine
sonars, Doppler sonar, and underwater communications, will be conducted in the Key West Range
Complex. Page 5-72 states the Navy will not conduct low-frequency, hull-mounted or non-hull
mounted mid-frequency, or high-frequency active sonar within FKNMS. For each alternative,
quantify the amount, if any, of sonar that would be used within the FKNMS, including but not
limited to sonar associated with Special Warfare.
Page 4 of 7
15. Activities Outside the OPAREA and SUAs: In the vicinity of the Key West Range Complex,
quantify and describe any activities that may occur outside W-174 A/B/C/E/F/G, W-465 AB,
Bonefish ATCAA, or the Key West OPAREA. This should include activities that will occur
between NAS-KW and the Key West OPAREA, special use airspace W-174 AB/C/E/F/G, W-465
A/B, and Bonefish ATCAA. This should include, but not be limited to, number of overflights by
each aircraft type, types and amount of exercises, amount of any supersonic overflights, and
number and type of vessel movements.
16. Exploding Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance "Tests: For the Key West Range Complex, page 2-91
states that sonobuoy lot acceptance tests will increase from 0 (0 events) under No Action to
1,512/yr (39 events/yr) under the Preferred Alternative, and 1,512 sonobuoys will use high
explosives. But in Appendix A.2.4.3 page A-101 it states that the assumption used for the analysis
is an average of 80 non-explosive sonobuoys per event. If the analysis was based on non-
explosive sonobuoys, but many sonobuoys in the Key West Range Complex will be explosive,
provide a separate analysis for environmental effects of explosive sonobuoys in the Key West
Range Complex.
17. Events Including Vessel Movement- Clarify the number of Events Including Vessel Movement
in the Key West Target Range, Page 3.0-97 indicates that the number of events including vessel
movement (training + testing) is 12+52=64 events for the Preferred Alternative. On Tables 2.8-1
to 2.8-3, the total appears to be 58 events, so 6 events are unaccounted for. Identify those 6 events
and/or reconcile the totals.
18. Bird Nesting Areas: On page 3.6-52 for Alternative 2, it states "Although noise due to aircraft
and vessels would increase over Alternative 1, the types of impacts on Bermuda petrels, piping
plovers, and roseate terns, as well as to piping plover critical habitat, would not differ substantially
from those under Alternative I." The text states the "types" of impacts would not increase, but
quantify the amount of increase (in the Preferred Alternative compared to No Action), in particular
for the Florida Keys including but not limited to the Dry Tortugas and Marquesas Keys. For
example, quantify the increased number of sonic booms and explosions that would be audible at
bird nesting areas in the Florida Keys.
19. Annual Events: Page 2-79,Tables 2.8-1 through -3 and many other places in the Draft EIS/OEIS
indicate the number of testing and training activities per year. Clarify if this is a yearly maximum
or a yearly average. Also, Page 3.0-67, page 3.0-97, page 3.0-112, and many other tables identify
the number of explosions, events, missiles, etc., but do not indicate whether this is the yearly total
or a total number.
20. Comparative Analysis: Table ES-I states that impacts for Alternatives I and 2 are "the same" as
the No Action Alternative. Explain how impacts can be "the same" when the data in the tables in
Chapter 3 show more impacts for Alternatives 1 and 2.
21. Other Waste Disposal: The EIS/OEIS describes the amount of military expended materials
(projectiles, sonobuoys, parachutes, flares, chaff, etc.). Given the increase in aircraft and vessel
activities, will the Preferred Alternative result in other waste disposal at sea such as garbage and
waste water? If so,explain the types and amount in the Key West Range Complex.
22.Ballastt eater and Invasive Species: Page 3.0-97 indicates the Preferred Alternative for the Key
lVest Range Complex would include an increase in Events IncJuding Vesse) Moircn nt from 2 per
Page 5 of 7
year to 64 per year. Given the increase in vessel events, will the Preferred Alternative result in
additional ballast water being disposed? If so, explain the precautions the Navy will take in the
Key West Range Complex to reduce the likelihood of spreading invasive, exotic, or nuisance
species through ballast water.
23. Contamination Potential: Will the Preferred Alternative result in additional risk of fuel leaks,
waste water leaks, or other accidents that could release contamination? If so, explain the
precautions the Navy will take in the Key West Range Complex to minimize that risk.
24. Sediment and Water Quality: Section 3.1.4 (pages 3.1-80 to -81) states that chemical, physical,
or biological changes to sediment or water quality would be measurable but below applicable
standards, regulations, and guidelines, and would be within existing conditions or designated uses.
This conclusion appears to be drawn from qualitative statements such as the volume of materials is
relatively small, dilution in the oceans is a substantial factor, most expended components are
subject to a variety of processes that render them benign, etc. Sediment and water quality are very
important issues in the fragile marine environment of the Florida Keys. For the Key West Range
Complex, provide supporting data for the conclusion and identify what mitigation measures the
Navy will implement to minimize degradation of sediment and water quality.
25. Maritime Security Operations: Page A-18 indicates that Anti-Surface Warfare Maritime
Security Operations (including but not limited to small-arms fire and anti-swimmer grenades) may
occur in all OPAREAs and littoral areas proximate to homeports. Page 2-81 does not indicate that
any MSO activities will occur in the Key West OPAREA. Clarify that no MSO will occur in the
Key West Range Complex, or define the amount and locations of MSO in the Key West Range
Complex.
26. Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Test: Page A-84 indicates that Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Test is proposed in the AFTT Study Area. Describe the amount
of this activity that is proposed within or proximal the Key West Range Complex.
27. Other Class Ship Sea Trials — Propulsion Testing: Page 2-94 and A-131 indicates that Other
Class Ship Sea Trials — Propulsion Testing (including full power and endurance runs) is proposed
in the AFTT Study Area. Describe the amount of this activity that is proposed within or proximal
the Key West Range Complex.
28. Surface Warfare *YINsion Package Testing: Pages A-134 through A-136 indicate that Surface
Warfare Mission Package Testing— Gun Testing Small-Caliber, Medium-Caliber, and Large-
Caliber is proposed in the AFTT Study Area. Describe the amount of this activity that is proposed
within or proximal the Key West Range Complex.
29. Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) / ,anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Testing: Page 2-98
indicates that Anti-Surface Warfare{ASUW)/ Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Testing, including
Missile Testing, Kinetic Energy Weapons Testing, Torpedo (Explosive) Testing, and
Countermevsure Testing — Acoustic System Testing, is proposed in the AFTT Study Area.
Describe the amount of this activity that is proposed within or proximal the Key West Range
Complex.
30. Hydrodynamic Testing: Page 2-99 indicates that Hydrodynamic Testing is proposed in the
AF17 Study Area. Describe the amount of this activity that is proposed within or proximal the
Key West Range Complex.
Puge 6 of 7
31. Number of Missiles: On page 3.0-115, Table 3.0-71, the number of missiles for Key West under
the Testing columns are blank. Provide a completed table.
32. Number of Flares and Chaff: The Draft EIS/OEIS for the AFIT indicates that the baseline
number of flares in the Key West Range Complex is 4,500 and the baseline number of chaff
canisters is 30,000. These numbers differ substantially from the 2009 EA/OEA for the Key West
Range Complex, which states the baseline number of flares in the Key West Range Complex is
23,642 and the baseline number of chaff canisters is 48,243. For each alternative, clarify number
of flares and chaff canisters proposed for the Key West Range Complex.
33. Hurricane Evacuation: Our citizens are under a State mandate to evacuate the Florida Keys
within 24 hours in the event of an approaching hurricane. Our ability to do so requires Monroe
County and its municipalities to limit growth and development each year. The State's traffic
models include the evacuation of military personnel. Therefore, to the extent, Alternative I or
Alternative 2 of the Draft EIS/OEIS would increase personnel in the Keys, the ability to evacuate
our citizens and military personnel in a safe and timely manner will be affected. The Draft
EIS/OEIS does not indicate the anticipated increase in local military personnel associated with
Alternative I or 2. Assess the impact of the alternatives on this critical public safety issue.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS/OE1S, and are eager to work with the Navy
on our shared goal of avoiding detrimental impacts to the unique character of the Florida Keys. Questions
or comments may be directed to Mr. Michael Davis at 954-776-1616 (mdavis@keithandschnars.com) or
Ms. Mayte Santamaria at (305) 289-2500 (San tamaria-Mayte CUP MonroeCounty-FL.Gov). We would
appreciate a meeting with the Navy to discuss responses to our comments.
Sincerely,
4D
Maylter avWice
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
cc: G.L. Edwards, Director.Environmental Readiness Division, U.S. Navy
Christine Hurley, Director, Monroe County Growth Management Division
Michael L. Davis, Vice President, Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Page 7 of 7
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2C -'i13)
APPENDIX E
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX E PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES............................................................................E-1
E.1 SCOPING PERIOD.........................................................................................................................E-1
E.2 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT/OVERSEAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT..............................................E-3
E.2.1 COMMENTERS, COMMENTS,AND RESPONSES .........................................................................E-3
E.2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.................................................................................................E-10
E.3 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE PROPOSED RULE .......................................................E-292
E.3.1 COMMENTERS, COMMENTS,AND RESPONSES .....................................................................E-293
E.3.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES...............................................................................................E-293
E.4 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/OVERSEAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT............................................................................................................................E-302
LIST OF TABLES
Table E-1: Agencies and Organizations Who Commented on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement.....................................................E-4
Table E-2: Private Individuals Who Commented on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement.....................................................E-6
Table E-3: Responses to Comments from Agencies..........................................................................E-11
Table E-4: Responses to Comments from Organizations...................................................................E-52
Table E-5: Responses to Comments from Private Individuals..........................................................E-112
Table E-6: Responses to Comments in the Form Letter from the Natural Resources Defense
Council..........................................................................................................................E-290
Table E-7: Responses to the Additions and Changes to the Form Letter as Submitted by the
Natural Resources Defense Council................................................................................E-291
Table E-8: Response to the Petition from MoveOn.Org..................................................................E-292
Table E-9: Agencies and Organizations Who Commented on the Proposed Rule............................E-293
Table E-10: Responses to Comments on the Proposed Rule from Agencies and Non-
Governmental Organizations.........................................................................................E-294
LIST OF FIGURES
There are no figures in this section.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E-i
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
E-H PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
APPENDIX E PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This appendix includes information about the public's participation in the development of the Atlantic
Fleet Training and Testing(AFTT) Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact
Statement(OEIS).
EA SCOPING PERIOD
The public scoping period began with the issuance of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on
15 July 2010 (Appendix B; Federal Register Notices). This notice included a project description and
scoping meeting dates and locations. The scoping period lasted 60 days, concluding on 14 September
2010. The scoping period allowed a variety of opportunities for the public to comment on the scope of
the EIS/OEIS. The Navy made significant efforts to notify the public to ensure maximum public
participation during the scoping process using stakeholder notification letters, postcard mailers, press
releases, and newspaper display advertisements (Chapter 8, Public Involvement and Distribution). The
meetings were structured in an open house format, presenting informational posters and written
information,with Navy staff and project experts available to answer participants'questions.
The Navy received comments from 69 individuals and groups. Because many of the comments
addressed more than one issue, 107 total comments resulted.The following provides a synopsis of the
comments received.
Biological Resources—Marine Mammals.A significant number of participants expressed concern about
impacts on marine mammals,in particular the North Atlantic right whale. Concerns were associated
with use of Navy sonar;ship strikes;impacts of Navy training and testing on habitat, breeding grounds,
and migration corridors;and the efficacy of mitigation measures.
Sonar and Underwater Detonations. Many comments mentioned concerns about the effect of Navy
sonar on marine life,such as marine mammals,fish,sea turtles,and marine invertebrates.Some
comments requested that the EIS/OEIS consider alternative technologies to mid-frequency active sonar.
Threatened and Endangered Species. Numerous comments discussed potential impacts on the North
Atlantic right whale habitat and migration routes and on sea turtle nesting areas, nesting seasons,and
habitat.Safety issues associated with ship strikes and entanglement were also raised,as were requests
for identification of additional mitigation measures.
Water Quality. Water quality comments included general concerns about potential contaminants in the
water, potential water quality impacts to fisheries,and habitat associated with Navy training,and
adherence to federal and state regulations, including state coastal management programs.
Other.This category includes a range of comments with numerous submissions discussing the
importance of offshore alternative energy interests and the need for Navy coordination with those
interests and activities, including interaction with federal, regional,and state agencies. Related to that
topic was a comment requesting review of wind turbine encroachment on Navy training areas.Other
comments stated that new or broadened activities should be performed elsewhere,that previous Navy
EIS documents have been inadequate, and that existing National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)and
other regulatory permits should not be reissued.A comment related to potential effects on cultural and
historical resources associated with the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas in the Gulf of Mexico was also
submitted.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E-1
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Biological Resources—Fish and Marine Habitat. A significant number of participants expressed
concerns about impacts on fish and marine habitat,with specific mention of the red drum,striped bass,
and effects on bottom habitat supporting snapper and grouper.Two commenters also requested
evaluation of Navy activities on potential oil spill residue remaining in the Gulf of Mexico and associated
impacts on habitat.
Meetings/National Environmental Policy Act Process. Comments on the National Environmental
Policy Act(NEPA) process and scoping meetings included support of the scoping meetings held,the
request for a public forum to be held in Texas,and a question about whether the Navy coordinates with
local environmental groups as part of the NEPA process. Other comments stated that the EIS process
under NEPA was Navy-driven and should include more independent,third-party review and
involvement.
Public Health and Safety. Comments were submitted regarding the perceived safety challenges posed
to people and the environment from military training and activities. Other comments discussed the
importance of Navy training to U.S. defense.
Alternatives. A range of comments discussed alternatives,with some stating that alternatives were
inadequate and lacked specificity,others providing suggested modifications to the list of alternatives,
and others supporting the alternatives provided and the evaluation of adjoining and overlapping range
complexes within one EIS document.Specific comments were submitted regarding the need for
additional study of the Outer Continental Shelf resources and a request that the EIS include individual
planning areas such as were included in the Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Testing EIS.
Recreation. Requests were made that the EIS analyze the effects of training and testing on the
nearshore environment and recreational resources.
Air Quality. Commenters requested complete characterizations and descriptions of the environmental
resources and physical conditions in the area of potential impact, including air quality.
Terrestrial/Birds. In addition to comments about impacts on wildlife and birds in general,a specific
request was made for the EIS to consider the impact of Navy training and testing on nesting waterbirds,
including those found in the southern Chesapeake Bay.
Depleted Uranium. The concern with depleted uranium involved its effect on U.S. military personnel
specifically and on people and the environment in general.
Noise. It was specifically requested that the EIS identify and evaluate potential noise impacts and
disturbances from training and testing activities.
Proposed Action.The comment pertaining to the Proposed Action supported the proposal and
alternatives.
Regional Economy. One comment noted the importance of the growing offshore alternative energy
industry to the state economy and requested consideration of the impact of training and testing sites
and activities on potential alternative energy interests.
E-2 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
E.2 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT/OVERSEAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The 60-day public comment period on the Draft EIS/OEIS began with the issuance of the Notice of
Availability and a Notice of Public Meetings in the Federal Register on 11 May 2012(Appendix B; Federal
Register Notices).The public comment period began on 11 May 2012 and concluded on 10 July 2012.
The Navy made significant efforts to notify the public to ensure maximum public participation during the
public comment period using postcards, press releases,and newspaper display advertisements (Chapter
8, Public Involvement and Distribution).
The Notice of Public Meetings included a project description and dates and locations of the five public
meetings.The public comment period allowed a variety of opportunities for the public to comment on
the Draft EIS/OEIS(Appendix B;Federal Register Notices). Copies of the Draft EIS/OEIS were provided to
28 libraries along the east and Gulf coasts and the document was available on the project web site for
review. Navy representatives were available during the open house public meetings to provide
information and answer questions one-on-one. Comment sheets were made available to attendees.
Commenters provided their input on the Draft EIS/OEIS in letters submitted through mail,written or oral
comments received at the public meetings,and via the project web site.The Navy also received form
letters from one non-governmental organization and a petition from another non-governmental
organization.Approximately 76,000 form letters were received,and there were approximately
477,000 signatures on the petition (Sections E.3.2.1 and E.3.2.2,respectively).
E.2.1 COMMENTERS,COMMENTS,AND RESPONSES
This section contains a list of the agencies and private entities that elected to comment on the Draft
EIS/OEIS(Tables E-1 and E-2) and a comment matrix with Navy responses associated with each
comment(Tables E-3, E-4,and E-5).Scanned copies of comment letters (with comment numbers
assigned by the Navy in yellow)are available on the project web site (www.AFTTEIS.com).
E.2.1.1 Commenters
During the 60-day public comment period,comments were received from 8 federal agencies,
16 state/local/regional agencies, 14 non-governmental organizations,and approximately 500 private
individuals (approximation due to duplicate comments received).The following table lists the agencies
and organizations that submitted comments during the comment period(Table E-1).The Commenter
Identifier is used to identify the comments and responses in the comment response matrix(Tables E-3
and E-4). For example,a comment letter from a federal agency could have 10 comments within it.To
organize responses,each commenter received a Commenter Identifier and each comment within the
letter was numbered (e.g., F01-01 is the first comment in the letter from the Marine Mammal
Commission).
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E-3
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-1:Agencies and Organizations Who Commented on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement
Commenter Commenting Agency/O,rganization
Identifier,
Federal Agencies(F)
F01 Marine Mammal Commission
F02 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District
F03 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
F04 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District
F05 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, John F. Kennedy Space Center
F06 Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region
F07 Department of the Interior,Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
F08 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F09 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Wilmington District
State Agencies(S)
S01 Florida Department of Environmental Protection(includes comments from the Outer Continental
Shelf Program, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission)
S02 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
S03 State of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council
SO4 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
S05 Virginia Marine Resources Commission
S06 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office
S07 Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
S08 Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
S09 North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries(also submitted under S11)
S10 Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division
S11 North Carolina Department of Administration on behalf of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources(Division of Marine Fisheries, Division of Parks and Recreation, Division of
Coastal Management, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission)
S12 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
S13 Port of Virginia,Virginia Port Authority
S14 Maryland Department of Planning, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
E-4 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-1:Agencies and Organizations Who Commented on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement(Continued)
Commenter
Identifier " Commentn A e.. r a.,riizationnY Local/Regional Government Agencies(L)
L01 City of Norfolk,Virginia
L02 City of Virginia Beach,Virginia
L03 County of Monroe, Florida
Organizations(0)
001 Maryland Environmental Services
002 Ocean Conservation Research
003 Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance
004 Sierra Club
005 Wildseas.org
006 Sierra Club Ocean County Group(New Jersey)
007 Last Stand(Protect Key West&the Florida Keys)
008 Ocean Defender
009 Natural Resources Defense Council
010 Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
011 Savannah Airport Commission
012 Natural Resources Defense Council (Form Letter)
013 Moveon.org(Petition)
As stated above,comments were received from approximately 500 private individuals(approximation
due to duplicate comments received).The following list contains the private individuals(P)who
submitted oral or written comments during the comment period (Table E-2).The Comment Identifier is
used to identify the comments and responses in the comment response matrix(Table E-5). Names of
individuals appear as they were provided to the Navy.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E-5
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-2:Private Individuals Who Commented on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement
P001 A Klick P035 DiDi Handley P071 Francisco Santos
P002 Aaron Joslin P036 Donna Beck P072 Francisco de Tavira
P003 Aaron Dressin P037 Donya Ayers-Bell P073 Frank Mangione
P004 Abbey Sutherland P038 Dorene Szeker P074 Frederick Rose
P005 Alexander Baggett P039 Dorene Schutz P075 Gary Barton
P006 Alexi Curington P040 Doris Maat P076 Ana Koopmans
P007 Alisha Arita P041 Doug Maesk P077 Gary Pitcock
P008 Amanda Evans P042 Douglas Morrison P078 Geisa Teixeira
P009 Amanda Stovall P043 Amy Donovan P079 George Lyter
P010 Amanda Beard-White P044 Ed Madej P080 Gerrit Blom
P011 Darlene Moak P045 Edith Wilson P081 Gertrude Wallis
P012 David Dow P046 Edith Maxey P082 Gina Brown
P013 Dawn Royster P047 Eileen Schendel P083 Ginger Carter
P014 Dawn Kirch P048 Elaine Smythe P084 Guillermo Garcia
P015 Dawn Nelson P049 Eleanor White P085 Gunta Kaza
P016 Dawn Lauer P050 Eleanor White P086 Gwen Anderson
P017 Debbie Carter P051 Elisse De Sio P087 Andrew Weinstein
P018 Debbie Kozin P052 Elizabeth Abrams P088 Hanna Chitrik
P019 Deborah Fletcher P053 Elizabeth Gray P089 Harriet Shalat
P020 Deborah Seemayer- P054 Amy Evans P090 Heather Hintz
lannotti P055 Elizabeth Hall P091 Heather Carpenter
P021 Amber Tisue P056 Elizabeth Hale P092 Heather Mohan
P022 Deborah Salonek P057 Emilia Wronski P093 Heidi Johnson
P023 Deborah&Thomas P058 Eric Mallin P094 Heidi Lett
Taylor
P024 Deborah S Van P059 Erica Cranden P095 Henry DiPasquale
Damme P060 Erika Chotai P096 Holland VanDieren
P025 Debra Scott P061 Eugene OKeeffe P097 Holly Gallo
P026 Denise Boulet P062 Evelyn Vollmer P098 Angela Kemper
P027 Denise Wilson P063 Evi Seidman P099 Howard Lubel
P028 Desiree Herrera P064 Fabiana Fiesmann P100 Igor Khomyakov
P029 Diana Marmorstein P065 Amy Pollman P101 Ina Sparka
P030 Diana George P066 Flo Flowing P102 J Behrens
P031 Diane Kastel P067 Florence Eaise P103 J Ward
P032 Amy Wheeler P068 Fonda Dichiara P104 Jack Foreman
P033 Diane Wacker P069 Fonda Feingold P105 Jahn Dussich
P034 Dianne Patterson P070 Francine Guokas P106 James Ruhle
E-6 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-2:Private Individuals Who Commented on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement(Continued)
P107 Jan Johnson P142 Anita French P178 Karli Duran
P108 Jan McCreary P143 Joanna Randazzo P179 Kasia Muzyka
P109 Angelika Davis P144 Joanna Lewis P180 Kate Coyle
Pilo Janet Weeks P145 Joanna Lewis P181 Kate Freeman
P111 Janet Arendacs P146 Jodi Jubran P182 Katherine McRory
P112 Janet Mercer P147 Jodi Bauter P183 Katherine Carrus
P113 Janette Kuhn P148 Jody Gibney P184 Katherine Dorothy
P114 Janette Reever P149 John Webb P185 Kathleen Howard
P115 Janice Chalifoux P150 John Hotvedt P186 Anna Mason
P116 Janna Kruse P151 John Abbott P187 Kathleen Summers
P117 Janna de Braal P152 John Abbott P188 Kathleen Smith
P118 Jared Sombat P153 Anita Welych P189 Kathleen Reier
P119 Jarrett Gable P154 John Abbott P190 Kathryn Chalmers
P120 Angie Winterbottom P155 John Abbott P191 Kathy Patterson
P121 Jean Public P156 John Shippey P192 Kathy Braidhill
P122 Jeanette Owen P157 Jonathan Ley P193 Katie Jones
P123 Jean-Frangois Van P158 Joshua Normandin P194 Katy Albright
den Broeck P159 Joy Mitchem P195 Keith Kocsis
P124 Jedde Regante P160 Joyce Heid P196 Keith Chaisson
P125 Jeff Reynolds P161 Judith Fairly P197 Anna Mason
P126 Jenni James P162 Julaine Nichols P198 Kelli Hall
P127 Jennifer Pechenik P163 Julia Hume P199 Kelly Grudziecki
P128 Jennifer Dowdle P164 Anke Groeber P200 Kelly Micklo
P129 Jennifer Vuillermet P165 Julia Becker P201 Ken K
P130 Jennifer Bruns P166 Julie Goldman P202 Kevin Tierney
P131 Anita Herrmann P167 Julie Rosenwinkel P203 Kevin Mcmillen
P132 Jennifer Ford P168 Julie McDaniel P204 Kevon Stone
P133 Jennifer Brown P169 June Polasek P205 Kezia Snyder
P134 Jennifer Wiseman P170 Justin Holt P206 Kim Daly
P135 Jenny Jackman P171 Kara Linsenmeiwr P207 Kim Springer
P136 Jessica Woodward P172 Kara Vlach-Lasher P208 Anna Sillanpaa
P137 Jessica Woodward P173 Karen Valerio P209 Kim Cox
P138 Jill Olson P174 Karen Maish P210 Kim Davis
P139 Jill Ray P175 Ann Malone P211 Kim Howell
P140 Jill Nelson P176 Karen Swistak P212 Kimberly Kelly
P141 Joan Lorenz P177 Karla Koebernick P213 Kirsi Hepworth
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E-7
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-2:Private Individuals Who Commented on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement(Continued)
P214 Kris Murphy P249 Lynn Anderson P284 Melinda McComb
P215 Krista Gard P250 Lynn O'Dowd P285 Barbara Haddad
P216 Kristal Basanta P251 Lynn Garman P286 Melinda Maclnnis
P217 Kristin Callis P252 Annette vd Berg P287 Melissa Minton
P218 L Makely P253 Lynn Olson-Tuma P288 Meredith Loughlin
P219 Anne Byers P254 Madeline Graham, P289 Micah Loggie
DVM
P220 Lance Groth P290 Michael Chapman
P221 Lance Fanguy P255 Magda Novak P291 Miguel Angel Tejada
P256 Magda Novak
P222 Larry Hirsch P257 Magda Novak P292 Mimi Nguyen
P223 Laura Pereira P293 Mindy Sweeny
P258 Marc Lemiere
P224 Lauren Williams P294 Monika Thelen
P259 Margherite DeSanto
P225 Lauren Garner P295 Morgan Riley
p296 Barbara Fleming
P226 Lawrence Baskett P260 Marguerite Strobel 9
P227 Leanne Williams P261 Maria Turchek p297 Naila Costa
P228 Leanne Redmon P262 Maria Schultz P298 Nan Towle
P263 Anthony Stuckey
P229 Lee Channing P299 Nancy Jenkins
P230 Anneke Loggie P264 Maria Vint P300 Natalie Boydstun
P231 Leinaala Kalama- P265 Marina Mueller P301 Natasha Keogh
Dutro P266 Marina Barry P302 Nicholas Read
P232 Leslie Porter P267 Marjorie Laird P303 Nick Scholtes
P233 LI Southerland P268 Markus Scherer P304 Nick Scholtes
P234 Libby Stortz P269 Martha Roberts P305 Nicole Silva
P235 Linda Churchwell P270 Maru Angarita P306 Noah Craddock
P236 Linda Kocsis P271 Mary de Mars
P307 Barbara Fitzpatrick
P237 Lisa Reff P272 Mary Lofts
P308 Olivia Withington
P238 Lisa Bigger P273 Mary Barnich P309 Olof Minto
P239 Lisa Wilkerson P274 Arturo Lopez
P310 Paige Lewandowski
P240 Lise Guillet P275 Mary Garrett P311 Pam Thompson
P241 Annette Cole P276 Mary Anne O'Sullivan
P312 Parry Lopez
P242 Liz Marshall P277 Mary P. Daoust P313 Pasha Yushin
P243 Loraine Miscavage P278 Marylou Schmidt
P314 Pat Rasmussen
P244 Lori Girshick P279 Matthew Reynolds
P315 Patricia Bourland
P245 Louise Lilja P280 Maureen Newton P316 Patricia Yager
P246 Louise River P281 Maureen Engh Delagrange
P247 Luanne Cullen P282 Megan Haug P317 Paul Kelley
P248 I Luke Gardner P283 Melanie Barnet rP318 Barbara Holtz
E-8 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-2:Private Individuals Who Commented on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement(Continued)
P319 Paula Avila P355 Sarah Hays P390 Sylvia Hlynsdottir
P320 Paulette Kaplan P356 Sean Wise P391 Tamara Santelli
P321 Perdita Holtz P357 Serena Burnett P392 Tamarleigh Grenfell
P322 Rachel Feldman P358 Shane McKibben P393 Tara Bionaz
P323 Randy Herz P359 Sharlene Harrison- P394 Tara Selbo
P324 Rebecca Portman Hinds P395 Blake Andrews
P325 Rebecca Siegmund P360 Sharon Cohen P396 Ted Lewis
P326 Rebecca Lunardi P361 Sharon Silva P397 Teresa Keller
P327 Rebekah Maish P362 Barbara B. Ruge P398 Terri Canavan
P399
P328 Renate Riffe P363 Sharon Riley Terry B aresh
P400
P329 Barbara Holt P364 Shayna Weinstein Terry Thompson
P365 Sheila Wells P401
P330 Rhonda Rance Terry Thompson
P331 Richard Pendarvis P366 Sherry Ramsey P402 Terry Thompson
P332 Rick Monroe P367 Shevy Singh P403 Theresa Sheridan
P368 Simran Kaur
P333 Risa Mandell P404 Thomas Wright
P369 Sonia Hurt
P334 Rita Lemkuil P405 Thomas Brown
P370 Sophie Ebert
P335 Robert Seat P406 Blythe Rostock
P371 Sophie Ebert
P336 Robert Seat P407 Thomas Mazorlig
P337 Robin Sullivan P372 Stacy Wagner P408 Thomas Monforte
P338 Robin Brown P373 Ben McKinley P409 Tina Drobilek
P374 Stephanie Small P410 Tommy V
P339 Ron Cole y an
P340 Barbara Wallace P375 Stephanie Terry Gampelaere
P376 Stephen Augustine P411 Traci Hunt
P341 Rosalind Peterson
P377 Stephen Smith P412 Tracy Purcell
P342 Rosemary Packard
P378 Steve Disch P413 Tracy Korhonen
P343 Ruth Cooper
P379 Steve Armstrong P414 Tricia Wyse
P344 Ruth Pennington
P380 Sue Murphy P415 Tricia Rizzi
P345 Rutily Vincent
P381 Sujatha Ramakrishna P416 Trina Lopatka
P346 Sabrina Roth
P382 Susan Menconi P417 Bonnie Bennett
P347 Sam Jomes
P348 Samantha Abadinsky P383 Susan Clapp P418 Valerie Loe
P384 Bill Baker P419 Valerie Retter
P349 Samantha Novak
P350 Sandra Taylor P385 Susan Snowball P420 Valerie Haak
P386 Susan Siragusa- P421 Vicki Cooper
P351 Barbara Kann Ortman
P422 Vicki Mccallister
P352 Sandra Moreland P387 Susan Woodward
P423 Victoria Anderson
P353 Sandy Dvorsky P388 Swamp Deville P424 I Victoria Chamara
P354 I Sarah Swingle P389 Sydney VerVynck
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E-9
ATLANTIC FLEET TRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-2:Private Individuals Who Commented on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement(Continued)
P425 Victoria Martin P452 Caroline Verde P481 Colleen Crinion
P426 Victoria Strang P453 Carolyn Eck P482 Cristina Stoyle
P427 Virginia Perry P454 Carolyn O'Brien P483 Curt Albright
P428 Bonnie Duncan P455 Casey Lewis P484 Cyndi Nelson
P429 Warren Senders P456 Catherine Blystone P485 Cynthia Weller
P430 Wendy Vogelgesang P457 Catherine Daligga P486 Cynthia Greb
P431 Wendy Alward P458 Cathy Ritacco P487 D.Weinstein
P432 Will Jobbins P459 Cathy Pupo P488 Daria Gyedu
P433 William Knight P460 Cayetana Johnson P489 James Ruhle
P434 William and Martha P461 Cecelia Theis P490 Beverly Bernice Hatley
Cherry P462 Charlene Ozell Wilhite
P435 Yolanda Ochoa P463 Charles Swanson P491 Eric Bernthal
P436 Yzetta Smith P464 Charlotte Rivas P492 Chris Capozziello
P437 Joseph Steel P466 Charlotte A. Shockley P493 Brian Hurley
P438 Bonnie Card P467 Cherry Lee P494 Heather Tallent
P439 Brenda Lee P468 Cheryl Huvard P495 Melody Halligan
P440 Brian Wauer P469 Chisa Hidaka P496 Richard Barry
P441 Brittany Herz P497 F&N
P470 Christina Engert
P442 Bruno Felix P471 Christina Tallman P498 Marisa Landsberg
P443 C. Smith P499 Pat Ginsbach
P472 Christine Roth
P444 Camille Rousseau P500 J. Capozzelli
P473 Christine Cina
P445 Candice McConnell P501 Linn Barrett
P474 Christine Coniglio
P446 Carey Cherivtch P502 Don Timmerman
P475 Christopher Law
P447 Carmen McIntyre P476 Cindy Wargo P503 Jean Marie Naples
P448 Carol Stewart P477 Cindy Yang P504 Beverly Bernice Hatley
Wilhite
P449 Carol Boyse P478 Claudia Cerio
P505 B. Holden
P450 Carol Brighton P479 Cleia Zinser
rP5O6 Suzanne Rivell
P451 Caroline Power P480 Colleen Johnson
1 E.2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2 Tables E-3, E-4, and E-5 provide a listing of all comments received on the Draft EIS/OEIS and the Navy's
3 responses. Responses to these comments were prepared and reviewed for scientific and technical
4 accuracy and completeness. Comments appear as they were submitted and have not been altered with
5 the exception that expletives,addresses,and phone numbers were removed,as necessary.Table E-3
6 contains comments from federal(F),state(S),and local (L)agencies received during the public comment
7 period and the Navy's response.
E-10 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ATLANTIC FLEETTRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-3:Responses to Comments from Agencies(Continued)
Comment comment;-;',-,; Navy-Reapon>3e.,
Identlfler.
L02 The City of Virginia Beach is fully supportive of the Navy's proposed Thank you for your comment.
action as described in the draft EIS.
L03-01 Number of Takeoffs and Landings at NAS-KW:According to Take-offs and landings from Naval Air Station Key West are outside the
page 2-79 of the Draft EIS/OEIS,the number of Air Combat Maneuver scope of this EIS/OEIS.Please see Section 2.1(Description of the
(ACM)events in the Key West Range Complex ranges from Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area)and Section 2.4
5,700 events for No Action to 6,840 events for Alternative 2. (Proposed Activities)of the EIS/OEIS for a dear definition of the scope of
According to page 3.0-27,the number of events including aircraft this project.Take-offs and landings from Naval Air Station Key West will
movement in the Key West Range Complex(including but not limited be addressed under the Naval Air Station Key West Airfield Operations
to ACM,FLAREX,and CHAFFEX events)ranges from 9,646 events EIS(currently in draft).Training cycles and testing needs are expected to
for No Action to 10,881 events for Alternative 2.Given that multiple vary due to current and emerging threats.Due to changing needs,the
aircraft may be involved in one event,and that multiple events may be EIS/OEIS is structured to provide flexibility in training and testing
completed during a single flight,and that the takeoffs and landings locations.See Tables 2.8-1,2.8-2,and 2.8-3 for information on the
may occur at NAS-KW,aircraft carriers,or other locations;it is not number of proposed activities and their locations.
clear how the number of events translates into the number of takeoffs
and landings at NAS-KW.Provide the number of takeoffs and
landings at NAS-KW under each alternative,including the current
NAS-KW baseline.
L03-02 Effect of F-35 and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet on Socioeconomic Take-offs and landings from Naval Air Station Key West are outside the
Resources:At the Key West Range Complex,the difference in Air scope of this EIS/OEIS.Please see Section 2.1(Description of the
Combat Maneuver(ACM)events between the No Action and Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area)and Section 2.4
Preferred Alternative is described as an increase in the number of (Proposed Activities)of the EIS/OEIS for a dear definition of the scope of
events(20%increase).But the EIS/OEIS does not appear to evaluate this project.Take-offs and landings from Naval Air Station Key West will
the change in the types of aircraft used.According to page A-2,Air be addressed under the Naval Air Station Key West Airfield Operations
Combat Maneuver(ACM)events will be conducted using F-35,F/A- EIS(currently in draft).Socioeconomic issues associated with the
18,and F-5 aircraft.Provide an analysis of the effects of the Proposed Action in the Key West Range Complex have been addressed
introduction of F-35 takeoffs and landings at NAS-KW on local in Section 3.11.3(Socioeconomic Resources—Environmental
socioeconomic resources including but not limited to noise effects on Consequences).
the surrounding community and tourism.Also,in the Navy's 2003
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Introduction of the F/A-
18E/F Super Hornet Airport to the East Coast of the United States,
the impacts resulting from F/A-18E/F Super Hornet operations at
NAS-KW were not discussed.Therefore,the No Action baseline in the
AFTT Draft EIS/OEIS should not include the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Provide an analysis of the effects of F/A-18E/F Super Hornet takeoffs
and landings at NAS-KW on local socioeconomic resources including
but not limited to noise effects on the surrounding community and
tourism.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E-43
ATLANTIC FLEETTRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-3:Responses to Comments from Agencies(Continued)
Comment
Commen
IdenttFler t NavyReaponae
L03-03 Number of F-35 Takeoffs and Landings at NAS-KW:According to Take-offs and landings from Naval Air Station Key West are outside the
page 2-71,the F-35 is projected to make up about one-third of the scope of this EIS/OEIS.Please see Section 2.1(Description of the
Navy's strike fighter inventory by 2020.According to page A-2,Air Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area)and Section 2.4
Combat Maneuver(ACM)events would be conducted using F-35 and (Proposed Activities)of the EIS/OEIS for a dear definition of the scope of
other aircraft.According to page 3.0-27,the number of events this project.Take-offs and landings from Naval Air Station Key West will
including aircraft movement in the Key West Range Complex be addressed under the Naval Air Station Key West Airfield Operations
(including but not limited to ACM,FLAREX,and CHAFFEX events) EIS(currently in draft).Training cycles and testing needs are expected to
ranges from 9,646 for No Action to 10,881 events for Alternative 2.In vary due to current and emerging threats.Due to changing needs,the
the Key West Range Complex for each alternative,how many of the AFTT EIS/OEIS is structured to provide flexibility in training and testing
events involving aircraft would include F-35 aircraft,and how many locations.See Tables 2.8-1,2.8-2,and 2.8-3 for information on the
F-35 takeoffs and landings would occur at NAS-KW. number of proposed activities and their locations.
L03-04 Timing of increases at NAS-KW:According to pages 2-76,2-79,and Take-offs and landings from Naval Air Station Key West are outside the
3.5-93,the number of Air Combat Maneuver(ACM)events in the Key scope of this EIS/OEIS.Please see Section 2.1(Description of the
West Range Complex under the Preferred Alternative would increase Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area)and Section 2.4
from 5,700 to 6,840 events/yr,a 20%increase,in support of proposed (Proposed Activities)of the EIS/OEIS for a dear definition of the scope of
increase in utilization of NAS-KW.Describe when the increase in this project.Take-offs and landings from Naval Air Station Key West will
takeoffs and landings would occur,including the time of day that the be addressed under the Naval Air Station Key West Airfield Operations
increased flights would occur(morning,day,evening,night),the days EIS(currently in draft stage).Training cycles and testing needs are
of the week that the increased flights would occur(weekdays, expected to vary due to current and emerging threats.Due to changing
weekends),and the seasons that the increased flights would occur. needs,the AFTT EIS/OEIS is structured to provide flexibility in training
and testing locations.See Tables 2.8-1,2.8-2,and 2.8-3 for information
on the number of proposed activities and their location.
L03-05 Amount of Activity Perceptible to Public:In the Key West Range Socioeconomic issues associated with the Proposed Action in the Key
Complex for each alternative,quantify how much activity(including West Range Complex are addressed Sections 3.11.3(Socioeconomic
but not limited to aircraft overflights,ACMs„flares,chaff,air to air Resources—Environmental Consequences),Section 3.11,3.2(Acoustic
missile explosions,CSSQT gunnery,sonobuoy explosions,mine Stressors)states that the public might intermittently hear noise from ships
neutralization EOD explosions,etc.)would be visible or audible to the or aircraft overflights if they are in the general vicinity of a training or
public on the land,and how much activity would be visible or audible testing event.Training cydes and testing needs are expected to vary due
to the public offshore(including recreational and commercial to current and emerging threats.Due to changing needs,the EIS/OEIS is
mariners).This should include,but not be limited to,any nighttime use structured to provide flexibility in training and testing locations,
of flares,mine neutralization EOD activities on Demolition Key,and
whether Navy activities could affect navigational aides such as GPS
used by the public.It should also indude an estimate of the greatest
distance at which explosions(air to air missile explosions,CSSQT
high explosive large caliber rounds,sonobuoy explosions,mine
neutralization EOD explosions)and gunnery firing(medium-caliber
and high-caliber rounds)can be seen or heard.
E-44 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ATLANTIC FLEETTRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-3:Responses to Comments from Agencies(Continued)
Comment,,
Identifier " Comment Navy Response
L03-06 Quantify Restrictions to the Public:In the Key West Range Complex Many Navy at-sea training and testing ranges are accessible to the public
for each alternative,quantify any additional restrictions(areal extent, for recreational and commercial purposes.The Navy acknowledges that
frequency of closure,type of access)to the public including during speck exercises,its training and testing could briefly limit
commercial or recreational fishermen,aviators,divers,boaters,etc, (usually for a matter of hours)public access to a very limited portion of
due to the increase in ACMs,GUNEX A-A,MISSILEX A-A,mine coastal and ocean areas to ensure public safety.Socioeconomic
neutralization EOD,sonobuoy lot acceptance tests,CSSQT events, Resources(Section 3.11)addresses the availability of access on the
special warfare,or other proposed activities. ocean and in the air,specifically;Section 3.11.3.1(Accessibility)
concludes there would be no impacts on commercial and recreational
activities when Navy training and testing activities temporarily change
access to the ocean or airspace in the Study Area.Training cycles and
testing needs are expected to vary due to current and emerging threats.
Due to changing needs,the EIS/OEIS is structured to provide flexibility in
training and testing locations.
L03-07 Public Health and Safety:Page 3.12-12(for Alternative 1 and See the Alternative Development section(Section 2.5).All activities listed
page 3.12-13 for Alternative 2)states there will be an"increase"in in Tables 2.8-1,2.8-2,and 2.8-3 have been thoroughly analyzed in
active sonar testing activities and an"increase"in testing activities Chapter 3(Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences)
involving underwater explosions in the Key West OPAREA and other including an analysis of those activities with respect to Public Health and
places,and states that Altematives 1 and 2 would"adjust locations Safety(Section 3.12).The analysis of Public Health and Safety
and tempo"of the testing.But the term"increase"is an addresses all activities for all three alternatives and includes explosives,
understatement for the Key West Range Complex because there projectiles,and unexploded ordnance.Standard operating procedures
would be entirely new activities including exploding sonobuoy lot specified in Section 3.12 would be implemented to ensure public safety.
acceptance tests,CSSQT large caliber high explosive projectiles,
mine neutralization EOD charges,high explosive air-to-air missiles,
etc.Provide a public health and safety analysis specifically for these
completely new activities in the Key West Range Complex.In addition
to explosives and projectiles,include an assessment of unexploded
ordnance.
L03-08 Other Branches of the Military:The Draft ElS/OEIS refers to Navy The Proposed Action involves only Department of the Navy activities and
activities,but does not mention other branches of the military.This is is described in Chapter 2(Description of Proposed Action and
in contrast to the 2009 Final EA/OEA for the Key West Range Alternatives).Section 4.3.4(Other Military Actions)provides an analysis
Complex,which quantifies activities not just by the Navy,but also by of the other military activities in terms of cumulative impacts.Training
the Air Force and Air National Guard.Clarify whether the numbers of cycles and testing needs are expected to vary due to current and
events in the AFTT Draft EIS/OEIS are for the Navy only,or if they emerging threats.Due to changing needs,the EIS/OEIS is structured to
also include other branches of the military.Provide total numbers for provide flexibility in training and testing locations.See Tables 2.8-1,
the Key West Range Complex regardless of the branch of military. 2.8-2,and 2.8-3 for information on the number of proposed activities and
their locations.
L03-09 Avoidance Analysis for Explosions:The Preferred Alternative Explosions in the Key West Range Complex are addressed in
proposes explosions in the Key West Range Complex.Ex losions are Sections 3.3 Marine Habitats and 3.8 Marine Invertebrates for impacts
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E-45
ATLANTIC FLEETTRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-3:Responses to Comments from Agencies(Continued)
Comment Comment r Navy Response,,
Identifier
not in the current baseline,so this would be a completely new type of on coral reefs.Mitigation measures related to the use of explosives can
activity in the area.The explosions would be associated with air to air be found in Chapter 5(Standard Operating Procedures,Mitigation,and
missile exercises,mine neutralization EOD,sonobuoy lot acceptance Monitoring).Specifically,mitigation zones for coral reefs and other
tests,and CSSQT events.Given the environmentally sensitive nature seafloor habitats are presented in Section 5.3.3(Mitigation Areas).
of the area(particularly the only living coral reef tract in the Measures specific to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary are
continental United States),it is not appropriate to initiate a new discussed in Section 6.1.2(Marine Protected Areas).
activity such as explosions without a site-specific analysis of the
environmental consequences.Please provide that site-specific
analysis.Further,provide an avoidance analysis to evaluate if the
environmental impacts can be avoided or minimized by performing
the explosions in a different range complex.
L03-10 Avoidance Analysis for Military Expended Materials:The Preferred Potential impacts on marine habitats and marine invertebrates from
Alternative proposes a new type of military expended material in the military expended materials are addressed in Sections 3.3.3.2(Physical
Key West Range Complex:debris from 1,512 explosive sonobuoys Disturbance and Strike Stressors—Marine Habitats)and 3.8.3.3
and 3,120 non-explosive sonobuoys per year.Given the (Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors—Marine Invertebrates)
environmentally sensitive nature of the Keys(particularly the only respectively.This analysis takes into consideration the current status of
living coral reef tract in the continental United States),it is not the resource.Alternative training and testing locations(Section 2.5.1.1
appropriate to dispose of a new type of debris without a site-specific Alternative Training and Testing Locations)were eliminated from further
analysis of the environmental consequences.Please provide that site- consideration because they failed to meet the Navy's Purpose and Need
specific analysis.Further,provide an avoidance analysis to evaluate if (Section 1.4).
the environmental impacts can be avoided or minimized by
performing the sonobuoy testing in a different range complex.
L03-11 Expansion of Areas within the Key West Range Complex:Page 2-67 The extent of the Key West Range Complex and OPAREA has not
states that the Preferred Altematve will"Expand areas within the changed.Due to changing needs,the EIS/OEIS is structured to provide
VACAPES,Navy Cherry Point,JAX,and Key West Range flexibility in training and testing locations within or across range
Complexes where anti-air warfare events,such as air combat complexes.Training cycles and testing needs are expected to vary due
maneuvers and gunnery and missile exercises,would be conducted to current and emerging threats.See Tables 2.8-1,2.8-2,and 2.8-3 for
in order to allow for greater operational flexibility."Describe how areas information on the number of proposed activities and their locations.
within the Key West Range Complex would be expanded and provide
associated maps showing baseline and proposed areas.
L03-12 Shift Operations Farther Offshore:Some parts of the Key West The use and control of airspace is dictated by the Federal Aviation
OPAREA and Special Use Airspace are dose to the islands of the Administration National Airspace System and seeks to ensure the safe,
Florida Keys,and parts of the Special Use Airspace are above areas orderly,and efficient flow of commercial,private,and military aircraft.
frequently used by the public(e.g.,W-174 is above the route often Special Use Airspace has defined dimensions where activities must be
taken between Key West and the Dry Tortugas).Provide an confined because of their nature or where limitations may be imposed
avoidance and minimization analysis for shifting Navy activities farther upon aircraft operations that are not part of those activities(Federal
offshore to offset the proposed increase in activities in the Key West Aviation Administration Order 7400.8).Shifting this airspace would have
Range Complex. impacts to the other segments of the aviation community,such as
E-46 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ATLANTIC FLEETTRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-3:Responses to Comments from Agencies(Continued)
Comment
Ideritlfle►-° NavyReaporiBe"
_..
commercial jet routes.Moving the airspace farther offshore would also
reduce the amount of training that could be accomplished during a single
take-off and landing due to increased fuel consumption.Air combat
maneuvers in the Key West Range Complex have been revised and are
no longer proposed to increase.Section 2.5.1.1(Alternative Training and
Testing Locations)of the EIS/OEIS discusses how and why the Navy
developed the geographic locations of its activities.
L03-13 FKNMS Prohibitions:Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary The Proposed Action will not violate the prohibitions of the Florida Keys
(FKNMS)general prohibitions include,but are not limited to,removal National Marine Sanctuary.Section 6.1.2.5.4(Florida Keys National
or injury of coral or live rock,alteration of the seabed,and discharge Marine Sanctuary)has been revised to more dearly specify the following:
or deposit of most materials.Page 6-12 states that prohibitions(for (1)platforms,sources,or items that are part of Navy activities may be
the FKNMS)do not apply to existing classes of DoD military activities used within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary because they
conducted prior to the effective date of Sanctuary regulations as were specifically exempted,(2)platforms,sources,or items that are part
identified in the EIS and Management Plan for the Sanctuary(15 of Navy activities may be used within the Florida Keys National Marine
C.F.R.§922.163(d)(1)),and that new military activities in the Sanctuary because they are not likely to destroy,cause the loss of,or
Sanctuary are allowed and may be exempted from the prohibitions injure sanctuary resources,and(3)platforms,sources,or items that are
summarized after consultation between the Director and the Navy. part of Navy activities,but that are not planned to be used within the
Further clarify what activities would occur within the FKNMS,and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary(including a 2.7 nm buffer)as
specifically identify those activities that would violate FKNMS general part of the Proposed Action.
prohibitions if the Navy were not exempt.
L03-14 Sonar Within FKNMS:Page A-200 indicates Special Warfare,which Chapter 6(Additional Regulatory Considerations)was updated to more
may include Submarine sonars,Doppler sonar,and underwater clearly reflect which activities occur in the Florida Keys National Marine
communications,will be conducted in the Key West Range Complex. Sanctuary(Section 6.1.2.5.4).Those activities that could occur do not
Page 5-72 states the Navy will not conduct low-frequency,hull- result in impacts on sanctuary resources.Training cycles and testing
mounted or non-hull mounted mid-frequency,or high-frequency active needs are expected to vary due to current and emerging threats.Due to
sonar within FKNMS.For each altemative,quantify the amount,if changing needs,the EIS/OEIS is structured to provide flexibility in
any,of sonar that would be used within the FKNMS,including but not training and testing locations.See Tables 2.8-1,2.8-2,and 2.8-3 in the
limited to sonar associated with Special Warfare. EIS/OEIS for information the number of proposed activities and their
locations.Speck information about sonar usage is classified for national
security purposes.
L03-15 Activities Outside the OPAREA and SUAs:In the vicinity of the Key Take-offs and landings from Naval Air Station Key West are outside the
West Range Complex,quantify and describe any activities that may scope of this EIS/OEIS.Please see Section 2.1(Description of the
occur outside W-174 A/B/C/E/F/G,W-465 A/B,Bonefish ATCAA,or Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area)and Section 2.4
the Key West OPAREA.This should include activities that will occur (Proposed Activities)of the EIS/OEIS for a clear definition of the scope of
between NAS-KW and the Key West OPAREA,special use airspace this project.Takeoffs and landings from Naval Air Station Key West will
W-174 A/B/C/E/F/G,W-465 A/B,and Bonefish A TCAA.This should be addressed under the Naval Air Station Key West Airfield Operations
include,but not be limited to,number of overflights by each aircraft EIS.Training cycles and testing needs are expected to vary due to
type,types and amount of exercises,amount of any supersonic I current and emerqing threats.Due to chanaing needs,the EIS/OEIS is
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E-47
ATLANTIC FLEETTRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-3:Responses to Comments from Agencies(Continued)
; .
Comment , Comment ; Navy Response,
Identlfler. '
overflights,and number and type of vessel movements. structured to provide flexibility in training and testing locations.See
Tables 2.8-1,2.8-2,and 2.8-3 in the ElS/OEIS for information on the
number of proposed activities and their locations.
L03-16 Exploding Sonobuoy Lot Acceptance Tests:For the Key West Range The sonobuoy lot acceptance test indudes the use of both explosive and
Complex,page 2-91 states that sonobuoy lot acceptance tests will non-explosive sonobuoys.The number of explosive sonobuoys is listed
increase from 0(0 events)under No Action to 1,512/yr(39 events/yr) in Table 2.8-2 of the EIS/OEIS.The number of both non-explosive and
under the Preferred Alternative,and 1,512 sonobuoys will use high explosive sonobuoys is detailed in Appendix A(Navy Activities
explosives.But in Appendix A.2.4.3 page A-101 it states that the Descriptions,specifically,Section A.2.4.3).Both are included in the
assumption used for the analysis is an average of 80 non-explosive analysis.
sonobuoys per event.If the analysis was based on nonexplosive
sonobuoys,but many sonobuoys in the Key West Range Complex will
be explosive,provide a separate analysis for environmental effects of
explosive sonobuoys in the Key West Range Complex
L03-17 Events Including Vessel Movement:Clarify the number of Events Numbers have been reviewed and updated based on changes to the
Including Vessel Movement in the Key West Target Range. activities.See Tables 2.8-1,2.8-2,and 2.8-3 and Section 3.0.5.3.3.1
Page 3.0-97 indicates that the number of events including vessel (Vessels)for updated numbers.
movement(training+testing)is 12+52=64 events for the Preferred
Alternative.On Tables 2.8-1 to 2.8-3,the total appears to be 58
events,so 6 events are unaccounted for.Identify those 6 events
and/or reconcile the totals.
L03-18 Bird Nesting Areas:On page 3.6-52 for Alternative 2,it states Training cycles and testing needs are expected to vary due to current
"Although noise due to aircraft and vessels would increase over and emerging threats.Due to changing needs,the EIS/OEIS is structured
Alternative 1,the types of impacts on Bermuda petrels,piping plovers, to provide flexibility in training and testing locations.See Tables 2.8-1,
and roseate terns,as well as to piping plover critical habitat,would not 2.8-2,and 2.8-3 for information the number of proposed activities and
differ substantially from those under Alternative I."1."The text states their locations.
the"types"of impacts would not increase,but quantify the amount of
increase(in the Preferred Alternative compared to No Action),in
particular for the Florida Keys including but not limited to the Dry
Tortugas and Marquesas Keys.For example,quantify the increased
number of sonic booms and explosions that would be audible at bird
nesting areas in the Florida Keys.
L03-19 Annual Events:Page 2-79,Tables 2.8-1 through-3 and many other Tables 2.8-1,2.8-2,and 2.8-3 represent the number of annual events the
places in the Draft EIS/OEIS indicate the number of testing and Navy anticipates it will conduct,unless otherwise noted.The language
training activities per year.Clarify if this is a yearly maximum or a was added to the titles of tables in Section 3.0,Introduction(to clarify that
yearly average.Also,Page 3.0-67,page 3.0-97,page 3.0-112,and the totals represent annual numbers).
many other tables identify the number of explosions,events,missiles,
etc.,but do not indicate whether this is the yearly total or a total
E-48 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ATLANTIC FLEETTRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-3:Responses to Comments from Agencies(Continued)
Comment
Comment `,„ Navy,Response
Identifier
number.
L03-20 Comparative Analysis:Table ES-1 states that impacts for Altematives The language was revised to indicate that the types of impacts would be
1 and 2 are"the same"as the No Action Alternative.Explain how the same but the numbers would increase,
impacts can be"the same"when the data in the tables in Chapter 3
show more impacts for Altematives 1 and 2.
L03-21 Other Waste Disposal:The EIS/OEIS describes the amount of military The Proposed Action does not include any waste disposal at sea.Please
expended materials(projectiles,sonobuoys,parachutes,flares,chaff, see Section 2.4(Proposed Activities)of the EIS/OEIS for a clear
etc.).Given the increase in aircraft and vessel activities,will the definition of the scope of this project.
Preferred Alternative result in other waste disposal at sea such as
garbage and waste water?If so,explain the types and amount in the
Key West Range Complex.
L03-22 Ballast Water and Invasive Species:Page 3.0-97 indicates the Please see Section 2.4(Proposed Activities)of the EIS/OEIS for a clear
Preferred Altemative for the Key West Range Complex would include definition of the scope of this project.Best management practices and
an increase in Events Including Vessel Movement from 2 per year to Navy policy dictate how ballast water is handled.Ballast water discharge
64 per year.Given the increase in vessel events,will the Preferred is not a component of the training and testing activities analyzed under
Alternative result in additional ballast water being disposed?If so, this EIS/OEIS.Analysis presented in the EIS/OEIS is limited to the
explain the precautions the Navy will take in the Key West Range training and testing activities and reasonable outcomes of such activities.
Complex to reduce the likelihood of spreading invasive,exotic,or Ballast water discharge is not a component of the training and testing
nuisance species through ballast water. activities analyzed under this EIS/OEIS.The spread of invasive,exotic,
or nuisance species is neither reasonably foreseeable nor anticipated.
While the number of training and testing activities is likely to increase,
since multiple activities usually occur from the same vessel,the
increased number of activities is not expected to result in an increase in
ballast water discharge.
L03-23 Contamination Potential:Will the Preferred Alternative result in The analysis presented in the EIS/OEIS is limited to the activities and
additional risk of fuel leaks,waste water leaks,or other accidents that reasonable outcomes of such activities.Accidents involving fuel leaks,
could release contamination?If so,explain the precautions the Navy waste water leaks,and other contaminant releases are not reasonably
will take in the Key West Range Complex to minimize that risk. foreseeable,nor anticipated.The impact of such occurrences is not
addressed or analyzed.The Navy has plans and procedures for
preventing,reporting,and responding to contaminant releases.While the
number of training and testing activities is likely to increase,since
multiple activities usually occur from the same vessel,the increased
number of activities is not expected to result in an increase in vessel use
or transits.
L03-24 Sediment and Water Quality:Section 3.1.4(pages 3.1-80 to-81) The EIS/OEIS presents a thorough description and analysis in
states that chemical,physical,or biological changes to sediment or Section 3.1(Sediments and Water Quality)of amounts and types of
water quality would be measurable but below applicable standards, specific training materials as well as chemical composition and
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E-49
ATLANTIC FLEETTRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-3:Responses to Comments from Agencies(Continued)
Comment , „
N
Identifier. Comment avy Reeponse
�,. ,.
regulations,and guidelines,and would be within existing conditions or breakdown processes of expended materials.Based on the best
designated uses.This conclusion appears to be drawn from available science,no individual expended materials would result in water
qualitative statements such as the volume of materials is relatively or sediment toxicity surrounding expended items.Please see Section
small,dilution in the oceans is a substantial factor,most expended 3.1.3.3(Chemicals Other than Explosives)which provides this
components are subject to a variety of processes that render them information.The Navy has taken a hard look through its analysis and has
benign,etc.Sediment and water quality are very important issues in considered the best available data in supporting its conclusions.
the fragile marine environment of the Florida Keys.For the Key West
Range Complex,provide supporting data for the condusion and
identify what mitigation measures the Navy will implement to minimize
degradation of sediment and water quality.
L03-25 Maritime Security Operations:Page A-18 indicates that Anti-Surface Locations identified within Tables 2.8-1 through 2.8-3 represent areas
Warfare Maritime Security Operations(including but not limited to where events are typically scheduled to be conducted.Events could
small-arms fire and anti-swimmer grenades)may occur in all occur outside of the specifically identified areas if environmental
OPAREAs and littoral areas proximate to homeports.Page 2-81 does conditions are not favorable on a range,the range is unavailable due to
not indicate that any MSO activities will occur in the Key West other units training or testing,it poses a risk to civilian or commercial
OPAREA.Clarify that no MSO will occur in the Key West Range users,or to meet fleet readiness requirements.However,Key West is not
Complex,or define the amount and locations of MSO in the Key West considered a home port in this context.
Range Complex.
L03-26 Intelligence,Surveillance,and Reconnaissance Test:Page A-84 Testing needs are expected to vary due to current and emerging threats
indicates that Intelligence,Surveillance,and Reconnaissance Test is and the locations of the tests are expected to vary based on availability of
proposed in the AFTT Study Area.Describe the amount of this activity air and sea space.Due to changing needs,the EIS/OEIS is structured to
that is proposed within or proximal the Key West Range Complex. provide flexibility in testing locations.The actual amount of activity
anticipated to occur in the Key West Range Complex,if any,is uncertain
at this time.
L03-27 Other Class Ship Sea Trials-Propulsion Testing:Page 2-94 and A- Testing needs are expected to vary due to current and emerging threats
131 indicates that Other Class Ship Sea Trials-Propulsion Testing and the locations of the tests are expected to vary based on availability of
(including full power and endurance runs)is proposed in the AFTT air and sea space.Due to changing needs,the EIS/OEIS is structured to
Study Area.Describe the amount of this activity that is proposed provide flexibility in testing locations.The actual amount of activity
within or proximal the Key West Range Complex. anticipated to occur in the Key West Range Complex,if any,is uncertain
at this time.
L03-28 Surface Warfare Mission Package Testing:Pages A-134 through Testing needs are expected to vary due to current and emerging threats
A-136 indicate that Surface Warfare Mission Package Testing-Gun and the locations of the tests are expected to vary based on availability of
Testing Small-Caliber,Medium-Caliber,and Large Caliber is air and sea space.Due to changing needs,the EIS/OEIS is structured to
proposed in the AFTT Study Area.Describe the amount of this activity provide flexibility in testing locations.The actual amount of activity
that is proposed within or proximal the Key West Range Complex. anticipated to occur in the Key West Range Complex,A any,is uncertain
at this time.
E-50 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ATLANTIC FLEETTRAINING AND TESTING EIS/OEIS FINAL VERSION(AUGUST 2013)
Table E-3:Responses to Comments from Agencies(Continued)
Comment
Identifier Comment„ - Navy;Response
L03-29 Anti-Surface Warfare(ASUW)I Anti-Submarine Warfare(ASW) Testing needs are expected to vary due to current and emerging threats
Testing:Page 2-98 indicates that Anti-Surface Warfare(ASUW)I and the locations of the tests are expected to vary based on the
Anti-Submarine Warfare(ASW)Testing,including Missile Testing, availability of air and sea space.Due to changing needs,the EIS/OEIS is
Kinetic Energy Weapons Testing,Torpedo(Explosive)Testing,and structured to provide flexibility in testing locations.The actual amount of
Countermeasure Testing-Acousfic System Testing,is proposed in activity anticipated to occur in the Key West Range Complex,if any,is
the AFTT Study Area.Describe the amount of this activity that is uncertain at this time.
proposed within or proximal the Key West Range Complex.
L03-30 Hydrodynamic Testing:Page 2-99 indicates that Hydrodynamic Testing needs are expected to vary due to current and emerging threats
Testing is proposed in the AFTT Study Area.Describe the amount of and the locations of the tests are expected to vary based on the
this activity that is proposed within or proximal the Key West Range availability of air and sea space.Due to changing needs,the EIS/OEIS is
Complex. structured to provide flexibility testing locations.The actual amount of
activity anticipated to occur in the Key West Range Complex,if any,is
uncertain at this time.
L03-31 Number of Missiles:On page 3.0-115,Table 3.0-71,the number of Table 3.0-71 has been revised and completed.
missiles for Key West under the Testing columns are blank.Provide a
completed table.
L03-32 Number of Flares and Chaff:The Draft EIS/OEIS for the AFTT The numbers of chaff and flares used in the Key West Range Complex
indicates that the baseline number of flares in the Key West Range annually can be found in Tables 3.0-92 and 3.0-93.The EIS/OEIS only
Complex is 4,500 and the baseline number of chaff canisters is includes training and testing activities as described in Section 2.4
30,000.These numbers differ substantially from the 2009 EA/OEA for (Proposed Activities)and Tables 2.8-1,2.8-2,and 2.8-3.Other activities
the Key West Range Complex,which states the baseline number of originating at Naval Air Station Key West are not included as part of this
flares in the Key West Range Complex is 23,642 and the baseline Proposed Action and are being addressed in the Naval Air Station Key
number of chaff canisters is 48,243.For each alternative,clarify West Airfield Operations EIS.
number of flares and chaff canisters proposed for the Key West
Range Complex.
L03-33 Hurricane Evacuation:Our citizens are under a State mandate to The Proposed Action does not involve an increase in personnel,and
evacuate the Florida Keys within 24 hours in the event of an therefore personnel increases were not analyzed in the EIS/OEIS.Please
approaching hurricane.Our ability to do so requires Monroe County see Section 2.1(Description of the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing
and its municipalities to limit growth and development each year.The Study Area)and Section 2.4(Proposed Activities)of the EIS/OEIS for a
State's traffic models include the evacuation of military personnel. clear definition of the scope of this project.
Therefore,to the extent,Alternative I or Alternative 2 of the Draft
EIS/OEIS would increase personnel in the Keys,the ability to
evacuate our citizens and military personnel in a safe and timely
manner will be affected.The Draft EIS/OEIS does not indicate the
anticipated increase in local military personnel associated with
Alternative 1 or 2.Assess the impact of the alternatives on this critical
public safety issue.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E-51