6 Regulatory Considerations

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ...... 6-1 6.1 Consistency with Other Applicable Federal, State, and Local Regulations, and Executive Orders ...... 6-1 6.1.1 Coastal Zone Management Act Compliance ...... 6-7 6.1.1.1 Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program ...... 6-8 6.1.1.2 California Coastal Management Program ...... 6-8 6.1.2 Marine Protected Areas ...... 6-8 6.1.2.1 State Marine Protected Areas ...... 6-32 6.1.2.2 National Estuarine Research Reserves ...... 6-32 6.1.2.3 National Wildlife Refuges ...... 6-32 6.1.2.4 Gear Restricted Areas ...... 6-32 6.1.2.5 National Parks ...... 6-32 6.1.2.6 National Monuments ...... 6-33 6.1.2.7 National Marine Sanctuaries ...... 6-35 6.1.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ...... 6-41 6.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ...... 6-42 6.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...... 6-43 6.4 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives and Efficiency Initiatives ...... 6-43

List of Figures

Figure 6.1-1: Location of Marine Protected Areas in the Hawaii Range Complex ...... 6-30 Figure 6.1-2: Location of Marine Protected Areas in the Southern California Portion of the Study Area ..... 6-31 Figure 6.1-3: Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary ...... 6-38 Figure 6.1-4: Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary ...... 6-40

i Table of Contents Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017 List of Tables

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action ...... 6-1 Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area ...... 6-11

ii Table of Contents Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017 6 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies shall, to the fullest extent possible, integrate the requirements of NEPA with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by agency practice so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively. This chapter summarizes environmental compliance for the Proposed Action, consistency with other federal, state, and local plans, policies, and regulations not considered in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences); the relationship between short-term impacts; and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity in the affected environment; irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, and energy conservation.

6.1 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS Implementation of the Proposed Action for the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS), would comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and executive orders. The United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) is consulting with and will continue to consult with regulatory agencies, as appropriate, during the NEPA process and prior to implementation of the Proposed Action to ensure that requirements are met. Table 6.1-1 summarizes the additional environmental compliance requirements not specifically assessed in the resource chapters. Section 1.6 (The Environmental Planning Process) provides brief excerpts of the primary federal statutes, executive orders, and guidance that form the regulatory framework for the resource evaluations in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences). Documentation of consultation and coordination with regulatory agencies is provided in Appendix J (Agency Correspondence).

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action

Laws, Executive Orders, International Status of Compliance Standards, and Guidance LAWS Abandoned Shipwreck Act For abandoned shipwrecks in United States (U.S.) Territorial Waters, (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] sections the federal government asserts title to the resource. See Section 3.10 2101-2106) (Cultural Resources) for assessment and conclusion that the Proposed Action is consistent with the act.

6-1 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (continued)

Laws, Executive Orders, International Status of Compliance Standards, and Guidance LAWS (Continued) Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships applies to U.S. vessels U.S.C. sections 1901–1915) worldwide and implements the requirements of annexes I (Oil Pollution), II (Noxious Liquid Substances Carried in Bulk), V (Ship- Generated Garbage), and VI (Air Pollution) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) for the United States. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships excludes warships and naval auxiliaries from the preventive measures in annexes I, II, and VI. For annex V, Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships requires Navy ships and submarines to comply fully with discharge restrictions applicable outside of “special areas” designated under annex V and places limitations on Navy ship discharges within annex V special areas. Requirements associated with the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships are implemented in accordance with the Navy Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual and related Navy guidance documents governing waste management, pollution prevention, and recycling. At sea, the Navy complies with these regulations and operates in a manner that minimizes or eliminates any adverse effects to the marine environment. See Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality) for the assessment. Antiquities Act In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action is (16 U.S.C. sections 431–433) consistent with the act’s objectives for protection of archaeological and historical sites and objects, preservation of cultural resources, and the public's access to them. See Section 3.10 (Cultural Resources) for the assessment. Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. The Navy will comply with the coastal zone federal consistency sections 1451-1464) requirements for those states whose coastal uses or resources may be affected by the Proposed Action. See Section 6.1.1 below, for discussions of Navy compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act. National Historic Preservation Act (54 In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action is U.S.C. section 300308) consistent with the national policy for the preservation of historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance. See Chapter 3.10 (Cultural Resources) for the assessment. The Navy will comply, as applicable, with the Section 106 consultation requirements. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation The Proposed Action may have potential impacts on essential fish and Management Act (16 U.S.C. sections habitat and managed species. Essential fish habitat consultation with 1801–1882) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be conducted for affected species and their habitats (see Section 6.1.3, Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act). Implementation of the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. significant adverse effects on migratory bird populations; therefore, sections 703–712) the Navy does not need to confer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. See Section 3.9 (Birds) for the assessment.

6-2 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (continued)

Laws, Executive Orders, International Status of Compliance Standards, and Guidance LAWS (Continued) Two National Marine Sanctuaries administered by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of National Marine Sanctuaries lie within or overlap the Study Area. These are discussed further in Section 6.1.2.7 (National Marine Sanctuaries). • The military activities the Navy proposed to be conducted in the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary all fall into classes of activities covered in the 1997 Final EIS/Management Plan for the Sanctuary, which under the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary regulations do not require permits or further consultation under section 304(d) unless the military activity is modified in a manner significantly greater than was considered in a previous consultation. These military activities are also the same classes of activities previously analyzed in the Navy’s 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS and for which the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries found no consultation was required in a letter dated August 16, 2013. The activities have not been modified in a manner significantly greater than those considered in the 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS. • Proposed military activities in the Channel Islands National National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 Marine Sanctuary are consistent with those activities U.S.C. sections 1431–1445c-1) described in the sanctuary’s regulations and in Section 3.5.9 (Department of Defense Activities, preexisting activities) of the 20091 Final Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. As demonstrated by the analysis in this EIS/OEIS, proposed activities are not significantly modified in such a way that possible adverse effects on Sanctuary resources or qualities are significantly different in manner than previously considered. In addition, all Navy activities are carried out in a manner that avoids to the maximum extent practicable any adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources or qualities. The military activities currently proposed are also the same classes of activities previously analyzed in the Navy’s 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS and for which the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries found no consultation was required in a letter dated August 16, 2013. The activities have not been modified in a manner significantly greater than those considered in the 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS.

______1The Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan (FEIS/MP) for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was released in 2009, although the regulations cite 2008 for the FEIS/MP.

6-3 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (continued)

Laws, Executive Orders, International Status of Compliance Standards, and Guidance LAWS (Continued) Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Military Munitions Rule identifies when conventional and chemical military munitions are considered solid waste. Military munitions are not considered solid waste based on the following condition stated in the 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 266.202(a)(1)(i-iii). Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Specifically, munitions are not considered hazardous waste when: (42 U.S.C. section 6901 et seq.) /Military Used for their intended purpose, including training of military Munitions Rule personnel and explosive emergency response specialists; research and development activities; and when recovered, collected, and destroyed during range clearance events. This condition covers the uses of munitions included in the Proposed Action; therefore, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act does not apply. Under the Rivers and Harbors Act, a permit is required when construction is proposed in navigable waterways. The Navy does not Rivers and Harbors Act anticipate construction in navigable waters under the Proposed (33 U.S.C. section 401 et seq.) Action. Therefore, no Army Corps of Engineer permits would be required. Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. The Proposed Action is consistent with regulations concerning the sections 1301–1315) Submerged Lands Act. Sunken Military Craft Act (Public Law The Sunken Military Craft Act does not apply to actions taken by, or at 108–375, 10 U.S.C. section 113 Note and the direction of, the United States. See Section 3.10 (Cultural 118 Stat. 2094–2098) Resources) for the assessment. The California Coastal National Monument is located along the California Coastal National Monument California coastline and comprises more than 20,000 unappropriated Designation (Presidential Proclamation or unreserved islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles occurring 7264, January 11, 2000), expanded areas within 12 nautical miles off the coast of California between Mexico including the Point Arena-Stornetta and Oregon (over 1,100 miles). Navy activities are not proposed to Public Lands (Presidential Proclamation occur in these areas. The Navy and the Bureau of Land Management 9089, March 11, 2014), and the have agreed on the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding dated Boundary Enlargement of the California 5 November 2007 regarding Navy activities in the vicinity of Coastal National Monument (Presidential monument resources. Implementation of the Proposed Action would Proclamation 9563, January 12, 2017) be consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding and would not affect monument resources.

6-4 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (continued)

Laws, Executive Orders, International Status of Compliance Standards, and Guidance LAWS (Continued) The proposed Navy activities would be carried out consistent with applicable laws. In accordance with Presidential Proclamation 8031 and Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument regulations (50 CFR part 404), all activities and exercises of the Armed Forces shall be carried out in a manner that avoids, to the extent practicable and Presidential Proclamation – consistent with operational requirements, adverse impacts on Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument resources and qualities. As analyzed in section 3.10 Monument; Designated by Proclamation (Cultural Resources), no adverse impacts on submerged cultural 8031 (June 15, 2006) and amended by resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. While there Proclamation 8112 (February 28, 2007), has been no incident to date, should there be a threatened or actual and 50 CFR part 404 event that may cause destruction of, loss of, or injury to a monument resource or quality (such as spill or grounding), the Department of Defense and Navy will coordinate with the Secretary of Commerce and Interior to respond to, provide mitigation, or restore the effects of any such harm. See Section 0 (National Monuments) for discussions of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. The proposed Navy activities would be carried out consistent with applicable laws. In addition, vessels and aircraft used in the conduct of military training and testing would be operated in a manner consistent with the requirements of the proclamation, so far as is Presidential Proclamation 9478 – practicable. While there has been no incident to date, should there be Papahanaumokuakea Marine National a threatened or actual event that may cause destruction of, loss of, or Monument Expansion injury to a Monument Expansion resource or quality (such as spill or grounding), the Department of Defense and Navy will coordinate with the Secretary of Commerce and Interior to respond to, provide mitigation, or restore the effects of any such harm. EXECUTIVE ORDERS In accordance with Navy procedures, implementation of the Proposed Executive Order 11990, Protection of Action would not affect wetlands as defined in Executive Order Wetlands 11990. The Navy prepared this OEIS in accordance with Executive Order Executive Order 12114, Environmental 12114 and Navy-implementing regulations found at 32 CFR part 187, Effects Abroad of Major Department of Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Department of Defense Defense Actions Actions. In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action would not Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions result in any disproportionately high and adverse human health or to Address Environmental Justice in environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. See Minority Populations and Low-Income Section 3.0.3.2 (Resources and Issues Eliminated from Further Populations Consideration). In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action would not Executive Order 12962, Recreational affect federal agencies’ ability to fulfill certain duties with regard to Fisheries promoting the health and access of the public to recreational fishing areas. See Section 3.11 (Socioeconomics) for the assessment.

6-5 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (continued)

Laws, Executive Orders, International Status of Compliance Standards, and Guidance EXECUTIVE ORDERS (continued) In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action would not Executive Order 13045, Protection of result in disproportionate environmental health or safety risks to Children from Environmental Health children. See Section 3.0.3.2 (Resources and Issues Eliminated from Risks and Safety Risks Further Consideration).

The Navy has prepared this EIS/OEIS in accordance with requirements that federal agencies whose actions affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems shall provide for implementation of measures needed to research, Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef monitor, manage, and restore them, including reducing impacts from Protection pollution and sedimentation. See Section 3.4 (Invertebrates) for the assessment.

In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action would not increase the number of or introduce new invasive species nor require the Navy to take measures to avoid introduction and spread of those species. Naval vessels are exempt from 33 CFR part 151 subpart D, Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species in Waters of the United States; however, the Navy follows ballast water protocols as required by the Chief of Naval Operations Instructions 5090.1D, Environmental Readiness Program Manual. The Navy has prepared this EIS/OEIS in accordance with requirements Executive Order 13158, Marine for the protection of existing national system marine protected areas. Protected Areas See Section 6.1.2 (Marine Protected Areas) for more information. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and In accordance with Navy procedures, the Proposed Action would not Coordination with Indian Tribal have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the Governments relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. See Table 8.2-1 for federally- recognized tribes that were provided notification letters of the HSTT EIS/OEIS. Executive Order 13547, Stewardship of The Proposed Action is consistent with the comprehensive national the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes Lakes. The Proposed Action is consistent with the federal government's Executive Order 13693, Planning for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and sustainability goals of this Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade Executive Order.

6-6 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-1: Summary of Environmental Compliance for the Proposed Action (continued)

Laws, Executive Orders, International Status of Compliance Standards, and Guidance INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS The Proposed Action does include vessel operation and incidental discharges from ships; however, Navy vessels operating in the Study Area comply with applicable laws and regulations, minimizing or eliminating potential impact from incidental discharges from ships as Chief of Naval Operations Instructions 5090.1D, Environmental Readiness Program Manual policy dictates. Marine Pollution International Convention for the (MARPOL) is an international agreement designed to minimize Prevention of Pollution from Ships pollution of the seas from commercial vessels. While the requirements and standards established by MARPOL do not apply directly to warships, auxiliaries, and other government owned vessels, parties to MARPOL have an obligation to ensure, by the adoption of appropriate measures not impairing the operations or operational capabilities of such ships, they act in a manner consistent with the agreement, so far as is reasonable and practicable. Notes: U.S. = United States, NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service, HSTT = Hawaii and Southern California Training and Testing, EIS = Environmental Impact Statement, OEIS = Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act, MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act, ESA = Endangered Species Act

6.1.1 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT COMPLIANCE The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] section 1451, et seq.) encourages coastal states to be proactive in managing coastal zone uses and resources. The act established a voluntary coastal planning program and required participating states to submit a Coastal Management Plan to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for approval. Under the act, federal actions that have an effect on a coastal use or resource are required to be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of federally approved Coastal Management Plans.

The Coastal Zone Management Act defines the coastal zone as extending “to the outer limit of State title and ownership under the Submerged Lands Act” (i.e., 3 nautical miles [NM] or 9 NM from the shoreline, depending on the location). The coastal zone extends inland only to the extent necessary to control the shoreline, but the shoreward extent is not relevant to the Proposed Action.

A consistency determination, a negative determination, or a de minimis exemption may be submitted for review of federal agency activities. A federal agency submits a consistency determination when it determines that its activity may have either a direct or an indirect effect on a state coastal use or resource. In accordance with 15 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] section 930.39, the consistency determination will include a brief statement indicating whether the proposed activity will be undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the management program. The consistency determination must be based on evaluation of the relevant enforceable policies of the management program. In accordance with 15 CFR section 930.35, “if a Federal agency determines that there will not be coastal effects, then the Federal agency shall provide the State agencies with a negative determination for a federal agency activity: (1) Identified by a State agency on its list, as described in section 930.34(b), or through case-by-case monitoring of unlisted

6-7 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

activities; or (2) Which is the same as or is similar to activities for which consistency determinations have been prepared in the past; or (3) For which the Federal agency undertook a thorough consistency assessment and developed initial findings on the coastal effects of the activity.” Thus, a negative determination must be submitted to a state if the agency determines no coastal effects and one or more of the triggers above is met. De minimis exemptions are activities proposed by the federal agency that have already been reviewed and approved by the state (after allowing for public review and comment), and those that the state has recognized as having insignificant direct or indirect (secondary or cumulative) effects on its coastal resources.

6.1.1.1 Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program Hawaii has an approved Coastal Zone Management Program (Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes), administered by the Hawaii Office of Planning. The program meets the federal coastal zone management requirements in managing coastal areas and resources, including beaches, fishponds, scenic areas, marinas, wetlands, harbors, recreational areas, historic sites, and marine resources.

Hawaii’s Coastal Zone Management Program employs a wide variety of regulatory and non-regulatory techniques to address coastal issues and uphold environmental law. Among them are stewardship, planning, permitting, education, and outreach. In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Navy will comply with Hawaii’s Coastal Zone Management Program.

6.1.1.2 California Coastal Management Program The state of California has an approved Coastal Management Plan, administered by the California Coastal Commission, codifying the California Coastal Act of 1976 (California Public Resources Code, section 30000 et seq.), the McAteer-Petris Act (created the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission), and the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act implement California’s Coastal Management Program. The California Coastal Act includes policies to protect and expand public access to shorelines, and to protect, enhance, and restore environmentally sensitive habitats, including intertidal and nearshore waters, wetlands, bays and estuaries, riparian habitat, certain woods and grasslands, streams, lakes, and habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals. In accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Navy will comply with California’s Coastal Management Plan.

6.1.2 MARINE PROTECTED AREAS Many areas of the marine environment have some level of federal, state, or local management or protection. Marine protected areas are designated and managed at all levels of government by a variety of agencies and have been established by more than 100 legal authorities. Marine protected areas vary widely in purpose, managing agencies, management approaches, level of protection, and restrictions on human uses. They have been designated to achieve objectives ranging from the conservation of biodiversity, to the preservation of sunken historic vessels, to the protection of spawning species important to commercial and recreational fisheries. 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).

Executive Order 13158, Marine Protected Areas (Federal Register 65(105): 34909-34911, May 26, 2000), directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish a National Marine Protected Areas Center charged with developing a national system of marine protected areas, and with maintaining a list of sites formally accepted into the national system. A full list and map of areas

6-8 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

accepted in the national system of marine protected areas is available from the National Marine Protected Areas Center (National Marine Protected Areas Center, 2013). Executive Order 13158 requires each Federal agency whose actions affect the natural or cultural resources that are protected by a national system of marine protected areas to identify such actions, and in taking such actions, avoid harm to those natural and cultural resources to the maximum extent practicable. Pursuant to Section 5 of Executive Order 13158, agency requirements apply only to the natural or cultural resources specifically afforded protection by the sites recognized in the List of National System Marine Protected Areas. Although many sites contain coastal (within the continental shelf) lands and islands, only the resources of the protected coastal and ocean waters, and the submerged lands thereunder, are subject to Section 5 of Executive Order 13158 (National Park Service, 2006).

All resources of the marine protected areas located within the Study Area have been incorporated into the analyses in Sections 3.1 through 3.9 (Air Quality, Sediments and Water Quality, Vegetation, Invertebrates, Habitats, Fishes, Marine Mammals, Reptiles, and Birds). In accordance with Executive Order 13158, the Navy has considered the potential impacts of its proposed activities under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) to the national system marine protected areas that contain marine waters within the Study Area, factoring in Navy standard operating procedures and mitigation when applicable to the stressor and resource, to avoid or minimize harm to natural and cultural resources for which these marine protected areas were designated to the maximum extent practicable.

The Navy implements standard operating procedures for aircraft safety, which involves pilots of Navy aircraft making every attempt to avoid large flocks of birds to reduce the safety risk involved with a potential bird strike. Since 2011, the Navy has required that all Navy flying units report all bird strikes through the Web-Enabled Safety System Aviation Mishap and Hazard Reporting System. The standard operating procedures for aircraft safety could result in a primary benefit to birds through a reduction in the potential for aircraft strike.

The Navy also has several standard operating procedures for vessel safety. For example, ships operated by or for the Navy assign personnel to stand watch at all times, day and night, when moving through the water (underway). Watch personnel undertake extensive training in accordance with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. A primary duty of watch personnel is to ensure safety of the ship, including the requirement to detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in the water that may be indicative of a threat to the ship and its crew, such as debris, a periscope, surfaced submarine, or surface disturbance. Per safety requirements, watch personnel also report any marine mammals sighted that have the potential to be in the direct path of the ship as a standard collision avoidance procedure. Navy vessels operate in accordance with the navigation rules established by the U.S. Coast Guard. All vessels operating on the water are required to follow the International Navigation Rules (Commandant, United States Coast Guard Instruction M16672.2D). These rules require that vessels at all times proceed at a safe speed so that proper and effective action can be taken to avoid collision and so they can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. The standard operating procedures for vessel safety could result in a secondary benefit to marine mammals through a reduction in the potential for vessel strike. For a full discussion of standard operating procedures, see Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures).

In addition to standard operating procedures, the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from sonar, explosives, and physical disturbance and strike stressors on applicable resources. For example, as described in Section 5.2.4 (Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors), mitigation for vessel movements includes training Lookouts and watch personnel with Marine Species Awareness

6-9 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Training (which provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and techniques, and sighting notification procedures) and requiring underway vessels to maneuver to maintain a specified distance from marine mammals. For a full discussion of mitigation, see Chapter 5 (Mitigation). Table 6.1-2 presents information on the national system marine protected areas located in the Study Area, as well as the training and testing activities that could occur within each area.

6-10 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area

Figure 6.1-1 and Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine Location Within Protection 6.1-2 Summary of Relevant Regulations Alternative and Marine Protected Area Protected Area the Study Area Focus Reference Considerations Number State Marine Protected Areas Ahihi-Kinau Prohibited: anchoring in any No proposed activities are expected to occur in the Natural Area manner, injuring or removing any area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the Reserve marine organism, damaging or Ahihi-Kinau Natural Area Reserve. 1 Hawaii Ecosystem (established in disturbing any geological features, 1973, 8.4 km2 in moving or damaging historic or size) prehistoric remains. Hanauma Bay Prohibited: operating any No proposed activities are expected to occur in the Marine Life watercraft, injuring or removing area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the Conservation any marine organism, damaging or Hanauma Bay Marine Life Conservation District. District 2 Hawaii Ecosystem disturbing any geological features. (established in 1967, 0.4 km2 in size) Prohibited: all entrance into and The Navy conducts no activities on or near Kahoolawe activities within the reserve (such Island. Submarines do conduct many underwater mine Kahoolawe as boating, fishing and diving) detection activities several nautical miles west of Island Reserve unless specifically authorized by the Kahoolawe. However, submarine underwater mine (established in 3 Hawaii Ecosystem Island Reserve Commission. detection activities are not likely to harm the area’s 1993, 202 km2 protected natural resources. No explosives are used in in size) this marine protected area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the Kahoolawe Island Reserve.

6-11 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1-1 and Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine Location Within Protection 6.1-2 Summary of Relevant Regulations Alternative and Marine Protected Area Protected Area the Study Area Focus Reference Considerations Number Kealakekua Bay Prohibited: injuring or removing Marine Life any marine organism (except within Conservation Subzone B), damaging or disturbing No proposed activities are expected to occur in the District 4 Hawaii Ecosystem any geological features, anchoring area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the (established in of boats in Subzone A (may be Kealakekua Bay Marine Life Conservation District. 1969, 1.2 km2 in anchored in Subzone B, only in size) sand). The Navy conducts sonar in the waters near Molokini Shoal Marine Life Conservation District. No explosives are used in this marine protected area. The Navy Molokini Shoal avoids impacting Conservation District resources and Marine Life Prohibited: injuring or removing qualities to the maximum extent practicable. Conservation any marine organism (except in Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are District 5 Hawaii Ecosystem Subzone B), damaging or disturbing employed whenever sonar activities occur, as (established in any geological features, moor and applicable. The Navy may conduct diver insertion or 1977, 0.4 km2 in anchoring of boats. extraction on or near Molokini. However, diver size) insertion or extraction is not likely to impact the area’s protected natural resources. Therefore, no impacts are expected to the Molokini Shoal Marine Life Conservation District.

6-12 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1-1 and Marine Location Within Protection Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 6.1-2 Summary of Relevant Regulations Protected Area the Study Area Focus Alternative and Marine Protected Area Considerations Reference Number Pupukea Marine Life Prohibited: injuring or removing No proposed activities are expected to occur in the Conservation any marine organism (outside of area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the District 6 Hawaii Ecosystem species and gear specific Pupukea Marine Life Conservation District. (established in regulations), damaging or 1983, 1 km2 in disturbing any geological features. size) West Hawaii Amphibious operations at Kawaihae Harbor are Regional Fishery expected to occur in the area. However they would not Management impact the fishes in the area because no lay nets are Focal Prohibited: unpermitted uses of Area 7 Hawaii used and fishes are not collected for any use. No Resource lay nets and aquarium collections. (established in explosives are used in this marine protected area. 1999, 226.3 km2 Therefore, no impacts are expected within the West in size) Hawaii Regional Fishery Management Area. It is unlawful to injure, damage, take, or possess any living, Arrow Point to geological, or cultural marine Lion Head Point resource for commercial and/or (Catalina Island) recreational purposes. However, No proposed activities are expected to occur in the State Marine all commercial and recreational area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the Conservation 8 California Ecosystem takes are allowed in accordance Arrow Point to Lion Head Point (Catalina Island) State Area with current regulations, except Marine Conservation Area. (established in the recreational take of 2012, 1.6 km2 in invertebrates which is prohibited size) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016).

6-13 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1-1 and Marine Location Within Protection Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred 6.1-2 Summary of Relevant Regulations Protected Area the Study Area Focus Alternative and Marine Protected Area Considerations Reference Number Take of all living marine resources No proposed activities are expected to occur in the is prohibited except for take area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the pursuant to activities authorized Blue Cavern (Catalina Island) State Marine Conservation under subsections of 14 California Area. Code of Regulations 632(b)(124) Blue Cavern (subsections 632[b][102][D] and (Catalina Island) 632[b][102] [E]). Except as State Marine pursuant to Federal law, Conservation 9 California Ecosystem emergency caused by hazardous Area weather, or as provided in (established in subsection 632(b)(102)(D), it is 2012, 6.8 km2 in unlawful to anchor or moor a size) vessel in the Catalina Marine Science Center Marine Life Refuge (Section 10932, Fish and Game Code)(California Department of Fish and Game, 2012). Bird Rock No proposed activities are expected to occur in the (Catalina Island) area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the Take of all living marine resources State Marine Bird Rock (Catalina Island) State Marine Conservation is prohibited, except by fishing Conservation Area. 10 California Ecosystem activities, which are restricted, Area (California Department of Fish and (established in Game, 2012). 2012, 19.9 km2 in size) Cabrillo State It is unlawful to injure, damage, No proposed activities are expected to occur in the Marine Reserve take, or possess any living, area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the (established in 11 California Ecosystem geological, or cultural marine Cabrillo State Marine Reserve. 2012, 1 km2 in resource (California Department of size) Fish and Wildlife, 2016).

6-14 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1- Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine Protected 1 and 6.1-2 Location Within Protection Summary of Relevant Regulations Alternative and Marine Protected Area Area Reference the Study Area Focus Considerations Number Casino Point It is unlawful to injure, damage, take, No proposed activities are expected to occur in the (Catalina Island) or possess any living, geological, or area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the State Marine cultural marine resource for Casino Point (Catalina Island) State Marine Conservation Area 12 California Ecosystem commercial and/or recreational Conservation Area. (established in purposes, subject to only a few 2012, 0.02 km2 in exceptions (California Department of size) Fish and Wildlife, 2016). It is unlawful to injure, damage, take, No proposed activities are expected to occur in the Cat Harbor (Catalina or possess any living, geological, or area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the Island) State Marine cultural marine resource for Cat Harbor (Catalina Island) State Marine Conservation Area 13 California Ecosystem commercial and/or recreational Conservation Area. (established in purposes, subject to only a few 2012, 0.6 km2 in exceptions (California Department of size) Fish and Wildlife, 2016). The Navy does not discharge waste in or near this area. Sonar-related activities and other training and Farnsworth Bank testing activities are not likely to harm the area’s ASBS1 State Water protected natural resources. A detailed analysis of Quality Protection 14 California Ecosystem Waste discharges are prohibited. Water Quality impacts in the Study Area is included in Area (established in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). 1974, 0.15 km2 in Therefore, no impacts are expected within the size) Farnsworth Bank ASBS1 State Water Quality Protection Area. Farnsworth It is unlawful to injure, damage, take, Sonar-related activities and other training and testing Offshore (Catalina or possess any living, geological, or activities are not likely to harm the area’s protected Island) State Marine cultural marine resource for natural resources. No explosives are used in this Conservation Area 15 California Ecosystem recreational and/or commercial marine protected area. Therefore, no impacts are (established in purposes, with only a few specified expected within the Farnsworth Offshore (Catalina 2012, 17.3 km2 in exceptions (California Department of Island) State Marine Conservation Area. size) Fish and Wildlife, 2016).

6-15 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1- Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine Protected 1 and 6.1-2 Location Within Protection Summary of Relevant Alternative and Marine Protected Area Area Reference the Study Area Focus Regulations Considerations Number It is unlawful to injure, damage, No proposed activities are expected to occur in the Farnsworth take, or possess any living, area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within Onshore (Catalina geological, or cultural marine the Farnsworth Onshore (Catalina Island) State Island) State resource for recreational Marine Conservation Area. Marine 16 California Ecosystem and/or commercial purposes, Conservation with only a few specified Area (established exceptions (California in 2012, 6.6 km2 Department of Fish and in size) Wildlife, 2016). The Navy conducts training and testing in all warfare areas, including mine warfare training activities and underwater communications testing activities just offshore (within 3 NM) of this water quality protection area. No explosives are used in La Jolla ASBS1 this marine protected area. The Navy does not State Water discharge any waste in or near this area. Mine Quality Protection Waste discharges are warfare training activities, underwater 17 California Ecosystem Area (established prohibited. communications testing activities, and other in 1974, 1.8 km2 training and testing activities are not likely to harm in size) the area’s protected natural resources. A detailed analysis of Water Quality impacts in the Study Area is included in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). Therefore, no impacts are expected within the La Jolla ASBS1 State Water Quality Protection Area.

6-16 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1-1 Location Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine and 6.1-2 Protection Summary of Relevant Within the Alternative and Marine Protected Area Protected Area Reference Focus Regulations Study Area Considerations Number It is unlawful to injure, damage, No proposed activities are expected to occur in the Laguna Beach take, or possess any living, area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the State Marine geological, or cultural marine Laguna Beach State Marine Conservation Area. Conservation resource for recreational and/or Area 18 California Ecosystem commercial purposes, with only a (established in few specified exceptions 2012, 9 km2 in (California Department of Fish size) and Wildlife, 2016). Laguna Beach No proposed activities are expected to occur in the It is unlawful to injure, damage, State Marine area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the take, or possess any living, Reserve Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve. 19 California Ecosystem geological, or cultural marine (established in resource (California Department 2012, 16.2 km2 of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). in size) Long Point No proposed activities are expected to occur in the (Catalina Island) area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the Take of all living marine resources State Marine Long Point (Catalina Island) State Marine Reserve. is prohibited (California Reserve 20 California Ecosystem Department of Fish and Game, (established in 2012). 2012, 4.3 km2 in size) Lover's Cove No proposed activities are expected to occur in the Take of all living marine resources (Catalina Island) area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the is prohibited except by fishing State Marine Lover's Cove (Catalina Island) State Marine activities that are exempt of the Conservation Conservation Area. 21 California Ecosystem prohibitions and maintenance of Area artificial structures, (California (established in Department of Fish and Game, 2012, 0.2 km2 in 2012). size)

6-17 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1-1 Location Marine Protected and 6.1-2 Summary of Relevant Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Within the Protection Focus Area Reference Regulations Alternative and Marine Protected Area Considerations Study Area Number It is unlawful to injure, damage, No proposed activities are expected to occur in the take, or possess any living, area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the geological, or cultural marine Matlahuayl State Marine Reserve. Matlahuayl State resource. Boats may be Marine Reserve launched and retrieved only in (established in 22 California Ecosystem designated areas and may be 2012, 2.7 km2 in anchored within the reserve size) only during daylight hours (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). The Navy does not discharge waste in or near this area. Northwest Santa Sonar-related activities and other training and testing Catalina Island activities are not likely to harm the area’s protected ASBS1 State Water natural resources. No explosives are used in this marine Quality Waste discharges are 23 California Ecosystem protected area. A detailed analysis of Water Quality Protection Area prohibited. impacts in the Study Area is included in Section 3.2 (established in (Sediments and Water Quality). Therefore, no impacts 1974, 53.6 km2 in are expected within the Northwest Santa Catalina Island size) ASBS1 State Water Quality Protection Area.

6-18 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1- Location Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine Protected 1 and 6.1-2 Protection Within the Summary of Relevant Regulations Alternative and Marine Protected Area Area Reference Focus Study Area Considerations Number The Navy conducts training and testing in all warfare Waste discharges are prohibited. areas, including amphibious, anti-surface warfare, However, discharges incidental to anti-submarine warfare, electronic warfare, mine military training and research, warfare, and expeditionary warfare activities in this development, test, and evaluation area. The Navy does not discharge waste in or near operations are allowed. San Clemente this area in violation of the site specific regulations. Discharges incidental to Island ASBS1 State Amphibious, anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine underwater demolition and other Water Quality warfare, electronic warfare, mine warfare, in-water explosions are not Protection Area 24 California Ecosystem expeditionary warfare, and other training and testing allowed in the two military closure (established in activities are not likely to harm the area’s protected areas in the vicinity of Wilson 1974, 199 km2 in natural resources. No explosives are used in this Cove and Castle Rock. Discharges size) marine protected area. A detailed analysis of Water must not result in a violation of Quality impacts in the Study Area is included in the water quality objectives, Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). including the protection of the Therefore, no impacts are expected within the San marine aquatic life beneficial use, Clemente Island ASBS1 State Water Quality Protection anywhere in the ASBS1. Area.

6-19 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1- Location Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine Protected 1 and 6.1-2 Protection Within the Summary of Relevant Regulations Alternative and Marine Protected Area Area Reference Focus Study Area Considerations Number The Navy conducts training and testing in all warfare areas, including mine warfare training activities and underwater communications testing activities just offshore (within 3 NM) of this water quality protection area. However, no explosives are used in San Diego-Scripps this this marine protected area. The Navy does not ASBS1 State Water discharge any waste in or near this area. Mine Quality Protection warfare training activities, underwater 25 California Ecosystem Waste discharges are prohibited. Area (established communications testing activities, and other training in 1974, 0.4 km2 in and testing activities are not likely to harm the area’s size) protected natural resources. A detailed analysis of Water Quality impacts in the Study Area is included in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). Therefore, no impacts are expected within the San Diego-Scripps ASBS1 State Water Quality Protection Area. It is unlawful to injure, damage, San Diego-Scripps take, or possess any living, Sonar-related activities and other training and testing Coastal State geological, or cultural marine activities, are not likely to harm the area’s protected Marine resource for recreational and/or natural resources in this marine protected area. Conservation Area 26 California Ecosystem commercial purposes, unless Therefore, no impacts are expected within the San (established in following the specified exceptions Diego-Scripps Coastal State Marine Conservation 2012, 3.8 km2 in (California Department of Fish and Area. size) Wildlife, 2016).

6-20 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1- Location Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine Protected 1 and 6.1-2 Protection Within the Summary of Relevant Regulations Alternative and Marine Protected Area Area Reference Focus Study Area Considerations Number Discharges incidental to Sonar-related activities and other training and testing San Nicolas Island underwater demolition and other activities are not likely to harm the area’s protected and Begg Rock in-water explosions are not natural resources. No explosives are used in this ASBS1 State Water allowed. Discharges must not marine protected area. A detailed analysis of Water Quality Protection 27 California Ecosystem result in a violation of the water Quality impacts in the Study Area is included in Area (established quality objectives, including the Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). in 1974, 257.6 km2 protection of the marine aquatic Therefore, no impacts are expected within the San in size) life beneficial use, anywhere in the Nicolas Island and Begg Rock ASBS1 State Water ASBS1. Quality Protection Area. Santa Barbara Sonar-related activities and other training and testing It is unlawful to injure, damage, Island State activities are not likely to harm the area’s protected take, or possess any living, Marine Reserve natural resources. No explosives are used in this 28 California Ecosystem geological, or cultural marine (established in marine protected area. Therefore, no impacts are resource (California Department of 2003, 33 km2 in expected within the Santa Barbara Island State Fish and Wildlife, 2016). size) Marine Reserve. It is unlawful to injure, damage, No proposed activities are expected to occur in the South La Jolla State take, or possess any living, area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the Marine geological, or cultural marine South La Jolla State Marine Conservation Area. Conservation Area resource for recreational and/or 29 California Ecosystem (established in commercial purposes, unless 2012, 6.4 km2 in following the specified exceptions size) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016).

6-21 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1-1 and Location Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine Protected Protection Summary of Relevant 6.1-2 Within the Alternative and Marine Protected Area Area Focus Regulations Reference Study Area Considerations Number It is unlawful to injure, No proposed activities are expected to occur in the South La Jolla State damage, take, or possess any area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the Marine Reserve living, geological, or cultural South La Jolla State Marine Reserve. 30 California Ecosystem (established in 2012, marine resource (California 13.1 km2 in size) Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). The Navy does not discharge waste in or near this Southeast Santa area. Sonar-related activities and other training and Catalina Island ASBS1 testing activities are not likely to harm the area’s State Water Quality Waste discharges are 31 California Ecosystem protected natural resources. No explosives are used Protection Area prohibited. in this marine protected area. Therefore, no impacts (established in 1974, are expected within the Southeast Santa Catalina 11.2 km2 in size) Island ASBS1 State Water Quality Protection Area. It is unlawful to injure, No proposed activities are expected to occur in the damage, take, or possess any area. Therefore, no impacts are expected within the living, geological, or cultural Swami’s State Marine Conservation Area. Swami's State marine resource for Marine Conservation recreational and/or Area (established in 32 California Ecosystem commercial purposes, unless 2012, 32.8 km2 in following the specified size) exceptions (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016).

6-22 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1-1 and Location Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine Protected Protection 6.1-2 Within the Summary of Relevant Regulations Alternative and Marine Protected Area Area Focus Reference Study Area Considerations Number Western Santa The Navy does not discharge waste in or near this Catalina Island area. A detailed analysis of Water Quality impacts in ASBS1 State Water the Study Area is included in Section 3.2 (Sediments Quality Protection 33 California Ecosystem Waste discharges are prohibited. and Water Quality). Therefore, no impacts are Area (established expected within the Western Santa Catalina Island in 1974, 9.1 km2 in ASBS1 State Water Quality Protection Area. size) Federal Marine Protected Areas National Wildlife Refuges This refuge is captured within the The Navy conducts no activities in or near the Pacific Remote Islands Marine Johnston Island National Wildlife Refuge. Ships may National Monument. The transit in the vicinity of the refuge and within the proclamation for that Monument Monument. Ships transiting in the vicinity are not indicates that prohibition of certain likely to harm the area’s protected natural activities does not apply to activities resources. Therefore, no impacts are expected to and exercises of the Armed Forces. the Johnston Island National Wildlife Refuge or the Johnston Island Any activities carried out within the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. National Wildlife area will be conducted in a manner Refuge consistent “so far as is reasonable 34 U.S. Territory Ecosystem (established in and practical” with the prohibitions. 1926, 2,190.5 km2 If a DoD activity causes any in size) destruction, loss, or injury to a resource within the refuge, then the Department of Defense (DoD) will coordinate with the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce, to take appropriate actions to respond, mitigate, restore, or replace the affected areas.

6-23 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

6-24 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1-1 and Location Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine Protected Protection Summary of Relevant 6.1-2 Within the Alternative and Marine Protected Area Area Focus Regulations Reference Study Area Considerations Number It is unlawful to injure, damage, No activities are proposed within the San Diego Bay take, or possess any living, National Wildlife Refuge. Activities in the bay would San Diego Bay geological, or cultural marine not injure, damage, take, or possess any living, National resource for recreational or geological, or cultural marine resource in the Refuge. Wildlife Refuge 36 California Ecosystem commercial purposes. Swimming, Therefore, no impacts are expected within the San (established in operating personal watercraft Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 1988, 17.2 km2 in (e.g., jet ski), and water skiing are size) not allowed on the refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014). National Parks Kalaupapa No proposed activities overlap with the park. National Historical Prohibitions in the park include Therefore, no impacts are expected within the Park (established 37 Hawaii Ecosystem restrictions on commercial and Kalaupapa National Historical Park. in 1998, 43.1 km2 recreational fishing. in size) Kaloko-Honokohau Unpermitted uses of lay nets and No proposed activities overlap with the park. National Historical aquarium collections are Therefore, no impacts are expected within the Kaloko- Park (established 38 Hawaii Ecosystem prohibited in the Park. Honokohau National Historical Park. in 1978, 5.2 km2 in size)

6-25 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1-1 and Location Marine Protected Protection Summary of Relevant Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Alternative 6.1-2 Within the Area Focus Regulations and Marine Protected Area Considerations Reference Study Area Number Vessel operations in excess of The Channel Islands National Park contains the land area of 5 mph or creating a wake in the islands and extends to 1 NM offshore from each island. areas so designated or within A small part of Santa Barbara Island is within the Study Channel Islands 100 feet of a diver’s marker, Area. The only applicable activity proposed in this EIS that National Park downed skier, or swimmer may occur near this area is sonar training, and it would not 39 California Ecosystem (established in 1938, are prohibited; and operation occur within the 1 NM boundary of the park around Santa 994.3 km2 in size) of a vessel in excess of Barbara Island. No explosives are used in this marine designated size, length or protected area. Therefore, no impacts are expected to width restrictions within natural resources that are protected within the Channel restricted areas is prohibited. Islands National Park.

6-26 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1-1 and Location Navy Proposed Activities under the Marine Protected Protection 6.1-2 Within the Summary of Relevant Regulations Preferred Alternative and Marine Area Focus Reference Study Area Protected Area Considerations Number National Monuments The Monument’s two Proclamations identify prohibitions on activities within the Monument. Proclamation 8031 provides that “all activities and exercises of the Armed Forces shall be carried out in a manner that avoids, to the extent Vessels and aircraft used in the conduct of practicable and consistent with operational military training and testing would be requirements, adverse impacts on operated in a manner consistent with the Monument resources and qualities.” requirements of Presidential Proclamations Similarly, Proclamation 9478, which 8031 and 9478, so far as is practicable. As expanded the Monument, requires that the analyzed in section 3.10 (Cultural Papahanaumokuakea “U.S. Armed Forces ensure that its vessels Resources), no adverse impacts on cultural Marine National and aircraft act in a manner consistent, so resources would occur as a result of the Monument and far as is practicable with the Proclamation by Proposed Action. While there has been no World Heritage Site n/a Hawaii Ecosystem the adoption of appropriate measures not incident to date, should there be a (established in 2006, impairing operations or operation threatened or actual event that may cause 1,508,860.1 km2 in capabilities.” Additionally, both destruction of, loss of, or injury to a size) Proclamations state that “in the event of Monument resource or quality (such as threatened or actual destruction of, loss of, spill or grounding), the Department of or injury to a Monument resource or quality Defense and Navy will coordinate with the resulting from an incident, including but not Secretary of Commerce and Interior to limited to spills and groundings, caused by a respond to, provide mitigation or component of the DoD or the United States restoration of the effects of any such harm. Coast Guard, the cognizant component shall promptly coordinate with the Secretaries for the purpose of taking appropriate actions to respond to and mitigate the harm and, if possible, restore or replace the Monument resource or quality.”

6-27 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1-1 and Location Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine Protected Protection 6.1-2 Within the Summary of Relevant Regulations Alternative and Marine Protected Area Area Focus Reference Study Area Considerations Number National Marine Sanctuaries Military activities the Navy proposes to conduct in See Section 6.1.2.7.1 (Hawaiian the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary all fall into classes of activities Marine Sanctuary) for details. covered in the 1997 Final EIS/Management Plan for Federal regulations prohibit the Sanctuary, which under the Hawaiian Islands approaching humpback whales Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary within 100 yards (90 meters) when Hawaiian Islands regulations do not require permits or further in the water except as authorized Humpback Whale consultation under section 304(d) unless the under the MMPA, as amended by National Marine Species and military activity is modified in a manner significantly n/a Hawaii the ESA, and 1,000 feet (300 Sanctuary habitat greater than was considered in a previous meters) when operating an aircraft (established in 1992, consultation. These activities are also the same except when in a designated flight 3,537.2 km2 in size) classes of activities previously analyzed in the Navy’s corridor for takeoff or landing from 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS and for which the Office of an airport or runway or as National Marine Sanctuaries found no consultation authorized under the MMPA, as was required in a letter dated August 16, 2013. The amended by the ESA. Other activities have not been modified in a manner prohibited activities are listed in 15 significantly greater than those considered in the CFR 922.184. 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS.

6-28 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Table 6.1-2: Marine Protected Areas within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

Figure 6.1-1 and Location Navy Proposed Activities under the Preferred Marine Protected Protection 6.1-2 Within the Summary of Relevant Regulations Alternative and Marine Protected Area Area Focus Reference Study Area Considerations Number Proposed military activities are consistent with those activities described in the sanctuary’s regulations and in Section 3.5.9 (Department of Defense Activities, preexisting activities) of the 20091 Final Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. As See section 6.1.2.7.2 (Channel Islands demonstrated by the analysis in this EIS/OEIS, National Marine Sanctuary) for proposed activities are not significantly modified in details. Military activities pre-existing such a way that possible adverse effects on Sanctuary the Sanctuary effective date of resources or qualities are significantly different in Sanctuary regulations (September manner than previously considered. In addition, all Channel Islands 1980) and those specifically listed in Navy activities are carried out in a manner that National Marine the Channel Islands National Marine avoids to the maximum extent practicable any Sanctuary n/a California Ecosystem Sanctuary FMP/Final EIS are exempt adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources or qualities. (established in 1980, from the prohibitions identified in 15 The military activities currently proposed are also the 3,804 km2 in size) CFR part 922.72 subpart G. Other same classes of activities previously analyzed in the activities that are modified, new, or Navy’s 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS and for which the not considered pre-existing may be Office of National Marine Sanctuaries found no exempted by the Director after consultation was required in a letter dated August consultation between the Director 16, 2013. The activities have not been modified in a and the DoD. manner significantly greater than those considered in the 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS. ______1The Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Management Plan (FEIS/MP) for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was released in 2009, although the regulations cite 2008 for the FEIS/MP. Notes: (1) ASBS is an Area of Special Biological Significance; (2) mph = miles per hour, NM = nautical miles, NM2 = square nautical miles, U.S. = United States, n/a = not applicable, km2 = square kilometers, CFR = Code of Federal Regulations, ESA = Endangered Species Act, MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act, NMSA = National Marine Sanctuaries Act

6-29 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Notes: HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area Figure 6.1-1: Location of Marine Protected Areas in the Hawaii Range Complex

6-30 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Note: HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Figure 6.1-2: Location of Marine Protected Areas in the Southern California Portion of the Study Area

6-31 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6.1.2.1 State Marine Protected Areas State governments have established marine protected areas, including state parks and species-specific sanctuaries, for the management of fisheries, nursery grounds, shellfish beds, recreation, tourism, and for other uses. These areas have a diverse array of conservation objectives, from protecting ecological functions, to preserving shipwrecks, to maintaining traditional or cultural interaction with the marine environment. There are 43 state or local marine protected areas within the Study Area that are included in the National System of Marine Protected Areas (Table 6.1-2 and Figures 6.1-1 and 6.1-2).

6.1.2.2 National Estuarine Research Reserves National Estuarine Research Reserve System sites protect estuarine land and water and provide habitat for wildlife. These sites also provide educational opportunities for students, teachers, and the public; and serve as laboratories for scientists (15 CFR part 921). The National Estuarine Research Reserve Program was established through the Coastal Zone Management Act and is administered in coordination with the National Marine Sanctuary System. Each reserve is managed by a state agency or university with input from local partners on a site-specific basis. There are no National Estuarine Research Reserve System sites within the Study Area.

6.1.2.3 National Wildlife Refuges Refuges are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in accordance with Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and habitats. National wildlife refuges are managed on a site-specific basis. Activities conducted within a refuge must not impair existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reduce the potential of the refuge to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future. The USFWS is directed to continue, consistent with existing laws and interagency agreements, authorized or permitted refuge uses necessary to facilitate military preparedness; however, new agreements permitting military preparedness activities on refuges are discouraged (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006). There are three national wildlife refuge areas within the Study Area, the Johnston Island National Wildlife Refuge and Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, and San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Table 6.1-2 and Figures 6.1-1 and 6.1-2).

6.1.2.4 Gear Restricted Areas The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for overseeing Regional Fishery Management Councils (Western Pacific and Pacific Fishery Management Councils) that are established under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These councils create and implement Fishery Management Plans, which help conserve and manage important fisheries in the United States (50 CFR Chapter 6). One management strategy used is the creation of Gear Restricted Areas, some of which are included in the National System of marine protected areas. There are no Gear Restricted Areas within the Study Area.

6.1.2.5 National Parks The National Park Service administers all national parks, national seashores, and some of the national recreation areas and national monuments to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife contained within. Park managers control all park usage to ensure that park resources and values are preserved for the future. Unacceptable impacts are those that fall short of impairment but

6-32 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

are still not acceptable within a particular park’s environment, as determined by the professional judgment of the park manager in accordance with National Park Service Management Policies 2006 (National Park Service, 2006). Military services may request the use of park areas for noncombat exercises. Permits are approved at the discretion of the park superintendent. There are three National Parks (Kalaupapa National Historical Park, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, Channel Islands National Park) within the Study Area that are included in the National System of Marine Protected Areas (Table 6.1-2 and Figures 6.1-1 and 6.1-2).

6.1.2.6 National Monuments Marine national monuments are designated through Presidential Proclamation under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906 (as codified in 54 U.S.C. section 320301). Marine national monuments are often co-managed by state, federal, and local governments as trustees, in order to preserve diverse habitats and ecosystem functions. Within the Study Area there is one marine national monument, Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (Table 6.1-2). The Monument was designated through Proclamation 8031 of June 15, 2006, amended by Proclamation 8112 of February 28, 2007, and more recently expanded into an adjacent area depicted on Figure 6.1-3 through Proclamation 9478 of August 26, 2016. The Monument is also a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Site as discussed in Section 3.10 (Cultural Resources).

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (the Monument) is one of the largest conservation areas in the world, encompassing 582,578 square miles in a chain of islands, reefs, and banks that extends to the northwest of the main Hawaiian Islands (National Marine Sanctuaries, 2016). This monument is within the Hawaii portion of the Study Area, northwest of the Hawaii OPAREA and encompassed within the Temporary Operating Area of the Hawaii Range Complex (see Figure 6.1 3). The Monument is managed by the State of Hawaii, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Department of Interior (USFWS), with the guidance of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council; the Department of Defense (DoD) has a sitting member on this council. In 2008, the Monument co-trustees adopted a Management Plan. This Management Plan describes a comprehensive and coordinated management regime to achieve priority mission needs over the next five years with a focus on an ecosystem management approach for the conservation of the natural, cultural, and historic resources, and qualities of the Monument.

The Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument contains more than 75 seamounts and a non- volcanic ridge that extends southwest towards Johnston Atoll (Proclamation 9478). The protected area contains 14 million seabirds, of which 22 species breed and nest within the boundaries of the monument. Of the over 7,000 species of marine life, one-quarter are found only in the Hawaiian Islands (National Marine Sanctuaries, 2016). More than 260 fish species inhabit the reefs of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, with relatively few species being herbivorous, the majority being carnivorous, or open ocean fish species (National Marine Sanctuaries, 2016). See Section 3.3 (Vegetation), Section 3.4 (Invertebrates), and Section 3.6 (Fishes) for additional information on species and bathymetry in the Study Area.

The Monument’s ecosystem supports a range of marine mammals, including the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi), the Hawaiian spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) (National Marine Sanctuaries, 2009a). The Hawaiian monk seal, which does not

6-33 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

exist outside of this area, is the most endangered marine mammal in the U.S. and the only seal that depends on coral reefs. Transient marine mammals in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument include spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Seasonally or periodically present whales include the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), and North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica). See Section 3.7 (Marine Mammals) for additional information on these species.

Five species of sea turtles occur in the Monument (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 2008). The Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument islands provide important nesting habitat for the threatened green sea turtle, with French Frigate Shoals alone supporting more than 80 percent of the nesting population for all the Hawaiian Islands. See Section 3.8 (Reptiles) for additional information on these species.

The Monument is also a place of special cultural significance for the Native Hawaiian community and provides a unique opportunity to manage marine resources in a manner that honors the rich heritage of the Native Hawaiian culture. In the past five years, there have been a variety of permitted Native Hawaiian activities in the Monument, including navigator training on traditional voyaging canoes, inter-tidal zone monitoring, experiential research during solstice and equinox events, Hawaiian language immersion expeditions, at sea education and culture programs, and the documentation and assessment of cultural sites on various islands. While most of the terrestrial activities take place on Nihoa and Mokumanamana at the eastern end and at Midway Atoll at the western end, the marine activities can take place anywhere in both the original and expanded Monument.

In addition, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument boundaries include Midway Atoll, which has been designated as a National Memorial to the Battle of Midway. Aircraft and shipwrecks from the Battle of Midway are considered war graves.

Presidential Proclamations 8031 (June 15, 2006) and 9478 (August 25, 2016) both provide activities and exercises of the U.S. Armed Forces an exemption from the prohibitions that are identified in each Proclamation. However, within the original designated Monument area, Proclamation 8031 requires that activities and exercises of the U.S. Armed Forces be carried out in a manner that avoids, to the extent practicable and consistent with operational requirements, adverse impacts on monument resources and qualities (50 CFR part 404.9(c)). Within the expansion area, Proclamation 9478 requires that the U.S. Armed Forces ensure that its vessels and aircraft act in a manner consistent, so far as is practicable with the Proclamation by the adoption of appropriate measures not impairing operations or operation capabilities. In the event of a threatened or actual destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Monument resource or quality resulting from an incident, including but not limited to spills and groundings, caused by a component of the DoD, the cognizant Component shall promptly coordinate with the Secretary of Interior and Commerce to respond to and mitigate the harm, and, if possible, restore or replace the Monument resource.

The training and testing activities that could occur within the Monument include training by individual ships transiting to and from the Western Pacific on deployment or occasional positioning of ships supporting testing or other events outside of the Monument. Activities can include:

• Air warfare • Surface warfare

6-34 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

• Anti-submarine warfare • Electronic warfare

Infrequent missile overflight of the Monument for test events can occur as sometimes the Temporary Operating Area is activated for those events in conjunction with U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners and the Federal Aviation Administration Notices to Airmen. However, the majority of test events do not require entry or overflight of the Monument.

Pursuant to 50 CFR 404.4(a)(1), the U.S. Armed Forces are exempt from the reporting requirements that apply to other vessels entering and exiting the monument.

6.1.2.7 National Marine Sanctuaries Under Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (also known as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration can establish as national marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment with special conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, archaeological, scientific, educational, or aesthetic qualities. Sanctuary regulations prohibit destroying, causing the loss of, or injuring any sanctuary resource managed under the law or regulations for that sanctuary (15 CFR part 922). National marine sanctuaries are managed on a site-specific basis, and each sanctuary has site-specific regulations. Most, but not all sanctuaries have site-specific regulatory exemptions from the prohibitions for certain military activities.

Additionally, section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act requires federal agencies to consult with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries whenever their proposed actions are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource. There are two national marine sanctuaries managed by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries within the Study Area, the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (Table 6.1-2 and Figures 6.1-3 and 6.1-4). The National Marine Sanctuaries are described in additional detail below.

6.1.2.7.1 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary is a single-species managed sanctuary, composed of 1,035 square nautical miles (NM2) of the waters around Maui, Lanai, and Molokai; and smaller areas off the north shore of Kauai, off Hawaii’s west coast, and off the north and southeast coasts of Oahu. The Sanctuary is entirely within the Hawaii Range Complex of the Study Area and constitutes one of the world’s most important Hawaii humpback whale Distinct Population Segment habitats, and is a primary region for humpback reproduction in the United States (National Marine Sanctuaries Program, 2002).

Scientists estimate that more than 50 percent of the entire North Pacific humpback whale population migrates to Hawaiian waters each winter to mate, calve, and nurse their young. The North Pacific humpback whale population has been split into two Distinct Population Segments. The Hawaii humpback whale Distinct Population Segment migrates to Hawaiian waters each winter and is not listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition to protection under the MMPA, the Hawaii humpback whale Distinct Population Segment is protected in Hawaiian waters by the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act. The sanctuary boundaries extend from the shoreline to 600-feet deep in many areas, encompassing a variety of marine ecosystems, including sea grass beds and coral reefs. The sanctuary was created to protect humpback whales and their habitat (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 2010).

6-35 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Congress authorized the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary in 1992, and the Governor of Hawaii formally approved it in 1997. The Sanctuary completed its first five-year review process in 2002 by updating the existing management plan and the Governor approved the final revised management plan for implementation in state waters.

The military activities the Navy proposed to be conducted in the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary all fall into classes of activities covered in the 1997 Final EIS/Management Plan for the Sanctuary, which under the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary regulations do not require permits or further consultation under section 304(d) unless the military activity is modified in a manner significantly greater than was considered in a previous consultation. These military activities are also the same classes of activities previously analyzed in the Navy’s 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS and for which the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries found no consultation was required in a letter dated August 16, 2013. The activities have not been modified in a manner significantly greater than those considered in the 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS.

The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary overlaps with the Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area identified in Van Parijs (2015) and Baird et al. (2015) and as shown in Figure K.2-1 of Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment). As discussed in Appendix K, Section K.3.1 (Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area), the use of sonar and other transducers primarily occur farther offshore than the designated boundaries of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area. Explosive events are typically conducted in areas that are designated for explosive use, which are areas outside of the Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area. Refer to Appendix K, Section 3.1 (Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area) for detailed biological and operational assessments. It is also of note that Navy training and testing in the Sanctuary follows the procedural mitigation measure that humpbacks are not approached within 100 yards and aircraft operate above 1,000 feet.

Since 2009, the Navy has adhered to a humpback whale cautionary area within the Sanctuary, an area identified as having one of the highest concentrations of humpback whales during the critical winter months. The use of mid-frequency active sonar training and testing within the existing cautionary area between December 15 and April 15 requires authorization by the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. As added protection, the Navy proposes to expand the size and extend the season of the current Humpback Whale Cautionary Area. The Navy proposes to also amend the authorization requirement for surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during unit level training and major training exercises in the Cautionary Area. The season is currently between December 15 and April 15; the Navy proposes to extend it from November 15 through April 15. The size of the Cautionary Area would expand to include an area north of Maui and Molokai and overlaps an area identified as biologically important for the critically endangered main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales (Baird et al., 2015; Van Parijs, 2015).

This proposed measure to include additional area north of Maui and Molokai for this Cautionary Area provides further protective measures for humpback whales and false killer whales. This area would not be off-limits; however, it would require a request to the appropriate designated Navy command authority prior to usage of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar from November 15 through April 15. The Navy would also provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in the annual training and testing reports. The reason for interest in the expansion of the Cautionary Area is due in part that, although humpbacks have recovered to the point of ESA delisting or

6-36 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

down-listing, most Pacific stocks of humpbacks have been experiencing a decline in migratory rates and physical health (e.g., emaciation, increase in strandings, fewer migrations) in the Pacific.

The Navy is proposing additional geographic mitigation areas that overlap with portions of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. A West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area would be established where the Navy would not conduct more than one (1) large integrated anti-submarine major training exercise (such as Rim of the Pacific) every other year, and three (3) medium integrated anti-submarine major training exercises (e.g., Undersea Warfare Exercise) per year. This proposed mitigation area encompasses a portion of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (see Figure 5.4-3, Mitigation Areas for Marine Mammals in the Hawaii Range Complex). This is a year-round measure. If a naval unit needs to conduct additional anti-submarine major training exercises with surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in this area for national security, the Navy would provide NMFS with advance notification and include the activity exceedance information (e.g., total sonar usage) in the annual training and testing reports.

The West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area would also overlap a newly proposed West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area where the Navy would not use any in-water explosives during testing, unit-level training, and major training exercises year-round. If a naval unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training, and major training exercises in this area for national security, permission shall be required from the appropriate designated Navy command authority prior to their use in the Cautionary Area. The Navy would provide NMFS with advance notification and include the activity information (e.g., explosive usage) in the annual training and testing reports.

This measure is designed to provide additional protection for humpback whales, ESA-listed main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales and two species of beaked whales (Cuvier and Blainville’s). This area also overlaps with other identified biologically important areas for other marine mammal species such as dwarf sperm whale, pygmy killer whale, melon-headed whale, short-finned pilot whale, and dolphin species for which the Planning Awareness/Cautionary Areas would provide additional protection (Baird et al., 2015; Van Parijs, 2015).

The Navy will continue to issue an annual humpback whale awareness notification message to remind ships and aircraft to be extra vigilant during times of high densities of humpback whales while in transit and to maintain certain distances from animals during the operation of ships and aircraft.

6-37 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Notes: HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area Figure 6.1-3: Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument and the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary

6-38 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

6.1.2.7.2 Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary is an ecosystem-based managed sanctuary consisting of an area of 1,109 NM2 around Anacapa Island, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Rosa Island, San Miguel Island, and Santa Barbara Island to the south. Only 92 NM2, or about 8 percent of the sanctuary, occurs within the Southern California portion of the Study Area (see Figure 6.1-4). The Study Area overlaps with the sanctuary at Santa Barbara Island.

As an ecosystem-based managed sanctuary, key habitats include kelp forest, surfgrass and eelgrass, intertidal zone, nearshore subtidal, deepwater benthic, and water column habitat. The diversity of habitats onshore and offshore contributes to the high species diversity in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, with more than 195 species of birds, at least 33 species of cetaceans, four species of sea turtles, at least 492 species of algae and four species of sea grasses, a variety of invertebrates (including two endangered species [black abalone and the white abalone]), and 481 species of fish (National Marine Sanctuaries, 2009b). See Section 3.3 (Vegetation), Section 3.4 (Invertebrates), Section 3.6 (Fishes), Section 3.7 (Marine Mammals), Section 3.8 (Reptiles), and Section 3.9 (Birds) for additional information on the discussion of impacts from proposed activities to these species. Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary regulations (15 CFR part 922, subpart G) provide that identified prohibitions do not apply to military activities carried out by the DoD as of September 1980 (effective date of the regulations) and specifically identified in Section 3.5.9 (Department of Defense Activities) of the Final Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (January 2009). The regulations also provide that the DoD exemption does not apply should DoD activities be modified: (1) in any way that requires preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to NEPA; or (2) in location or frequency, but not limited to these factors, such that possible adverse effects on Sanctuary resources are significantly greater or significantly different in manner than previously considered for the unmodified activity. In addition, the DoD exemption does not apply should there be new circumstances or information relevant to a Sanctuary resource or quality that were not addressed in the January 2009 Final Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. Lastly, all DoD activities must be carried out in a manner that avoids to the maximum extent practicable any adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources and qualities.

Of the DoD activities identified in the Final Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement, some sources of sonar and the use of in-water devices are the only training and testing activities proposed in this EIS/OEIS that occur in the overlap area between the Sanctuary and the HSTT Study Area. Increases to military activities described in the Proposed Action would not occur in the Sanctuary. Training activities that could occur in the area have not been modified in location/frequency in a way that would cause greater effects to sanctuary resources/qualities than originally contemplated. Although Navy has prepared an EIS/OEIS, the basis for the EIS/OEIS is not due to a modification of activities within the Channel Islands Marine National Sanctuary overlap area or in a manner due to relevant new circumstances or information in relation to Sanctuary resources or qualities in that area.

6-39 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Note: HSTT = Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Figure 6.1-4: Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

6-40 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Proposed military activities are consistent with those activities described in the sanctuary’s regulations and in Section 3.5.9 (Department of Defense Activities, preexisting activities) of the 2009 Final Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement. As demonstrated by the analysis in this EIS/OEIS, proposed activities are not significantly modified in such a way that possible adverse effects on Sanctuary resources or qualities are significantly different in manner than previously considered. In addition, all military activities are carried out in a manner that avoids to the maximum extent practicable any adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources or qualities. The military activities currently proposed are also the same classes of activities previously analyzed in the Navy’s 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS and for which the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries found no consultation was required in a letter dated August 16, 2013. The activities have not been modified in a manner significantly greater than those considered in the 2013 HSTT Final EIS/OEIS.

To provide additional protective measures for all protected marine species in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, the Navy is proposing a Channel Islands Sanctuary Cautionary Area surrounding Santa Barbara Island out to 6 NM. This mitigation will be established to restrict the use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar and in-water explosives used in gunnery (all caliber), torpedo, bombing, and missile exercises (including 2.75-inch rockets) during unit-level training, testing, and major training exercises year round. If a naval unit needs to use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water explosives in gunnery (all caliber), torpedo, bombing, and missile exercises (including 2.75-inch rockets) during unit level training and major training exercises in this area for national security, permission shall be required from the delegated Command authority, prior to their use in the Cautionary Area. The Navy will also provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in the annual training and testing reports.

6.1.3 MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. section 1801– 1891[d]), as amended by the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104–297), and the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-479), governs marine fisheries management in U.S. waters in order to promote long-term economic and biological sustainability for fisheries up to 200 NM from shore. Its main objectives are to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, increase long-term economic and social benefits, and ensure a safe and sustainable supply of seafood (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, 2017). The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 amended the law to establish procedures that identify, conserve, and enhance Essential Fish Habitat for species regulated under a federal fisheries management plan. Consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service on all actions or proposed actions that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat is required for federal action agencies under section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act defines an adverse effect as “any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of Essential Fish Habitat. Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and the loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of Essential Fish Habitat. Adverse effects to Essential Fish Habitat may result from actions occurring within Essential Fish Habitat or outside of Essential Fish Habitat and maybe include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions” (50 CFR 600.810). In addition to Essential Fish Habitat designations, areas called Habitat Areas of Particular Concern are also designated by the regional Fisheries Management Councils. Designated Habitat Areas of Particular Concern are discrete subsets of Essential

6-41 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Fish Habitat that provide extremely important ecological functions or are especially vulnerable to degradation.

The Proposed Action has the potential to impact essential fish habitat and managed species within the Study Area. As stated in sections 3.3 (Vegetation), 3.4 (Invertebrates), 3.5 (Habitats), and 3.6 (Fishes), the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment prepared for the 2013 HSTT EIS/OEIS is still valid because this Draft EIS/OEIS covers similar activities in the same study area to those analyzed in 2013 (copy of the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment is available at www.hstteis.com). Based on recommendations from previous consultations on essential fish habitat and managed species, the Navy would continue to implement agreed upon mitigation and conservation measures to avoid and minimize impacts on these resources as well as any new areas designated as essential fish habitat since 2013. For example, data from benthic habitat mapping surveys conducted as a result of previous consultations are being used by the Navy to avoid impacts on sensitive habitats (e.g., seagrass, shallow coral reefs, precious coral beds, live hardbottom, etc.) to the extent practicable during activities that have the potential to impact sensitive habitat. The Navy will continue to include maps based on the best available georeferenced data for these sensitive areas as provided by NMFS (i.e., where the available data accurately indicate the natural boundary of a seafloor resource and are not generalized within large geometric areas, such as large grid cells) in the Navy’s Protective Measures Assessment Protocol to ensure these areas are considered in planning of training and testing and avoided as necessary. In addition, the Navy will not conduct precision anchoring within the anchor swing circle diameter or within a 350-yard radius around these seafloor resources, as indicated by the best available georeferenced data (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources for details).

The Navy will continue to coordinate with NMFS to ensure that the best available data is being used for continued compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

6.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1502), this EIS/OEIS analyzes the relationship between the short-term impacts on the environment and the effects those impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the affected environment. Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment are of particular concern. This means that choosing one option may reduce future flexibility in pursuing other options, or that committing a resource to a certain use may often eliminate the possibility for other uses of that resource. The Navy, in partnership with NMFS, is committed to furthering the understanding of marine resources and developing ways to lessen or eliminate the impacts Navy training and testing activities may have on these resources. For example, the Navy and NMFS collaborate on the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program for marine species to assess the impacts of training activities on marine species and investigate population-level trends in marine species distribution, abundance, and habitat use in various range complexes and geographic locations where Navy training occurs.

The Proposed Action could result in both short- and long-term environmental impacts. However, these are not expected to result in any impacts that would reduce environmental productivity, permanently narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment, or pose long-term risks to health, safety, or general welfare of the public. The Navy is committed to sustainable military range management, including co-use of the Study Area with the general public and commercial and recreational interests. This commitment to co-use of the Study Area will maintain long-term accessibility of the HSTT EIS/OEIS

6-42 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

training and testing areas. Sustainable range management practices are specified in range complex management plans under the Navy’s Range Sustainment Program. Among other benefits, these practices 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.

6.3 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES NEPA requires that environmental analysis include identification of “any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the Proposed Action should it be implemented” (42 U.S.C. section 4332). Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of nonrenewable resources and the effects that the uses of these resources have on future generations. Irreversible effects primarily result from the use or destruction of a specific resource (e.g., energy or minerals) that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of the action (e.g., the disturbance of a cultural site).

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 may increase or decrease relative to the baseline, total fuel use would fluctuate depending on the year. Therefore, total fuel consumption would fluctuate depending on the year under the Proposed Action (Section 6.4, Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives and Mitigation Measures), and this nonrenewable resource would be considered irretrievably lost (see Chapter 4 [Cumulative Impacts] and the following discussion on the Navy’s Climate Change Roadmap).

6.4 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL OF ALTERNATIVES AND EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES Pursuant to the operational strategy report in 2011, the DoD published an implementation plan to integrate operational energy considerations and transformation into existing programs, processes, and institutions (U.S. Department of Defense, 2012). The DoD consumed approximately 1.3 percent of the total U.S. oil and petroleum consumption in Fiscal Year 2013. It is the largest single user in the nation (Burke, 2014). The Navy consumes approximately 26 percent of the total DoD share (U.S. Department of Defense, 2016). In Fiscal Year 2013, the Navy consumed almost 90 million barrels of liquid fuel (Burke, 2014). In 2016 the DoD published a new Operational Energy Strategy to update the 2011 strategy and transform the way energy is consumed in military operations; the strategy sets the overall direction for operational energy security (U.S. Department of Defense, 2011). The 2016 strategy shifts focus towards three objectives: (1) increasing future warfighting capability by including energy throughout future force development; (2) identifying and reducing logistic and operational risks from operational energy vulnerabilities; (3) and enhancing the force’s mission effectiveness with updated equipment and improvements in training, exercises, and operations (U.S. Department of Defense, 2016). These documents provide guidance to the DoD in how to better use energy resources and transform the way we power current and future forces.

6-43 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

Training and testing activities within the Study Area would result in an increase in energy demand over the No Action Alternative. The energy demand would arise from fuel consumption, mainly from aircraft and vessels participating in training and testing. Details of fuel consumption by training and testing activities on an annual basis are set forth in the air quality emissions calculation spreadsheets available on the project website. Aircraft fuel consumption is estimated to increase by approximately 33 percent and 37 percent per year under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, respectively, when compared to current rates of aircraft fuel consumption. Vessel fuel consumption is estimated to remain the same under Alternative 1 and to increase by approximately 41 percent per year under Alternative 2, when compared to current rates of vessel fuel consumption. Conservative assumptions were made in developing the estimates, and therefore the actual amount of fuel consumed during training and testing events may be less than estimated. The alternatives could result in a net cumulative reduction in the global energy (fuel) supply.

Energy requirements would be subject to any established energy conservation practices. The use of energy sources has been minimized wherever possible without compromising safety, training, or testing activities. No additional conservation measures related to direct energy consumption by the proposed activities are identified. The Navy’s energy vision given in the Operational Energy Strategy report (U.S. Department of Defense, 2016) is consistent with energy conservation practices and states that the Navy values energy as a strategic resource, understands how energy security is fundamental to executing our mission afloat and ashore, and is resilient to any potential energy future.

The Navy is committed to improving energy security and environmental stewardship by reducing its reliance on fossil fuels. The Navy is actively developing and participating in energy, environmental, and climate change initiatives that will increase use of alternative energy and help conserve the world’s resources for future generations. The Navy Climate Change Roadmap identifies actions the Environmental Readiness Division is taking to implement Executive Order 13653, Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change. The Navy’s Task Force Energy is responding to the Secretary of the Navy’s Energy Goals through energy security initiatives that reduce the Navy’s carbon footprint.

Two Navy programs—the Incentivized Energy Conservation Program and the Naval Sea Systems Command’s Fleet Readiness, Research and Development Program—are helping the fleet conserve fuel via improved operating procedures and long-term initiatives. The Incentivized Energy Conservation Program encourages the operation of ships in the most efficient manner while conducting their mission and supporting the Secretary of the Navy's efforts to reduce total energy consumption on naval ships. The Naval Sea Systems Command’s Fleet Readiness, Research, and Development Program includes the High-Efficiency Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning and the Hybrid Electric Drive for DDG-51 class ships, which are improvements to existing shipboard technologies that will both help with fleet readiness and decrease the ships’ energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. These initiatives are expected to greatly reduce the consumption of fossil fuels (Section 3.1, Air Quality). Furthermore, to offset the impact of its expected near-term increased fuel demands and achieve its goals to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, the Navy has launched the first vessels of its “Great Green Fleet in San Diego (Olson, 2016). The Great Green Fleet was a year-long, Department of the Navy initiative that demonstrated the sea service’s efforts to transform its energy use (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016). The Great Green Fleet’s centerpiece was a Carrier Strike Group that deployed on alternative fuels, including nuclear power for the carrier and a blend of advanced biofuel made from beef fat and traditional petroleum for its escort ships (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016). Throughout 2016, other platforms included ships, aircraft, amphibious and expeditionary forces, and shore

6-44 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

installations from the Department of the Navy that participated in the Great Green Fleet by using energy efficient systems, operational procedures, and/or alternative fuel during the course of planned mission functions throughout the world (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016).

6-45 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

This page intentionally left blank.

6-46 6.0 Regulatory Considerations Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017 REFERENCES

Baird, R. W., D. Cholewiak, D. L. Webster, G. S. Schorr, S. D. Mahaffy, C. Curtice, J. Harrison, & S. M. Van Parijs. (2015). 5. Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters—Hawaii region. In S. M. Van Parijs, C. Curtice & M. C. Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters (Vol. Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue) 41, pp. 54–64). Burke, S. (2014). Statement by Ms. Sharon Burke. Washington, DC: Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support Senate Armed Services Committee United States Senate. California Department of Fish and Game. (2012). Guide to the Southern California Marine Protected Areas: Point Conception to California-Mexico Border; Catalina Island MPAs. State of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2016). Southern California Marine Protected Areas. Retrieved from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Network/SouthernCalifornia#2682243 7accessccrtitle14section632a4 National Marine Protected Areas Center. (2008). Framework for the National System of Marine Protected Areas of the United States of America. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. National Marine Protected Areas Center. (2013). List of National System Marine Protected Areas. National Marine Sanctuaries. (2009a). Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Condition Report 2009. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce. National Marine Sanctuaries. (2009b). Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report 2009. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce. National Marine Sanctuaries. (2016). Papahanaumokuakea Expands Now Largest Conservation Area on Earth. Retrieved from http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/aug16/president-announced- expansion-of-papahanaumokuakea-marine-national-monument.html National Marine Sanctuaries Program. (2002). Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. (2017). Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/msa/ National Park Service. (2006). Management Policies 2006. Washington, DC. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. (2010). Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration —Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. Olson, W. (2016, January 15, 2016). Navy launching first Great Green Fleet next week, Electronic, Stars and Stripes. Retrieved from http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/navy-launching-first-great- green-fleet-next-week-1.388769 U.S. Department of Defense. (2011). Energy for the warfighter: Operational energy strategy. Washington, DC: Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans & Programs. U.S. Department of Defense. (2012). Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan. Washington, DC: Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy. U.S. Department of Defense. (2016). 2016 Operational Energy Strategy. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2016). Great Green Fleet. Retrieved from http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/energy/great-green-fleet/

6-47 References Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2006). Refuge Management. National Wildlife Refuge System Uses. (603 FW 1). Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw1.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, & State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. (2008). Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2014, February 24, 2014). San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge, California; Rules and Regulations. Retrieved Van Parijs, S. M. (2015). Letter of Introduction to the Biologically Important Areas Issue. In S. M. Van Parijs, C. Curtice, & M. C. Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters, Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue) 41(1), 1.

6-48 References