MARIANA ISLANDS TRAINING AND TESTING ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT
FINAL REPORT MAY 2014
Submitted By: Commander,, United States Pacific Fleet Department of the Navy 250 Makalapa Drive Pearl Harbor,, Hawaii 96860-3131
Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS µPa micropascal(s) EIS Environmental Impact Statement μPa2-s micropascal squared second EMATT Expendable Mobile ASW Training Target A-A Air-to-Air EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal AAV Amphibious Assault Vehicle EW Electronic Warfare A-S Air-to-Surface EW OPS Electronic Warfare Operations AAW Anti-Air Warfare EXTORP Exercise Torpedo ac. acre(s) F Fahrenheit ACM Air Combat Maneuver FDM Farallon de Medinilla ADEX Air Defense Exercise FEP Fishery Ecosystem Plan AG airgun FFG Frigate AIC Air Intercept Control FIREX Fire Support Exercise ALMDS Airborne Laser Mine Detection System FLAREX Flare Exercise AMNS Airborne Mine Neutralization System fm fathom(s) AMW Amphibious Warfare FMC Fishery Management Council AS submarine tender FMP Fishery Management Plan ASUW Anti-Surface Warfare F.R. Federal Register ASW Anti-Submarine Warfare ft. foot/feet 2 BaCrO4 barium chromate ft. square foot/feet BAMS Broad Area Maritime Surveillance G gauss BMUS Bottomfish Management Unit Species GUNEX Gunnery Exercise BOMBEX Bombing Exercise h depth C Celsius ha hectare(s) C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations HAPC Habitat Area of Particular Concern CG cruiser HF High-Frequency
CHAFFEX Chaff Exercise Hg(CNO)2 Fulminate of Mercury CHCRT Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa HRC Hawaii Range Complex cm centimeter(s) Hz Hertz CMUS Crustacean Management Unit Species IEER Improved Extended Echo Ranging CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands IMPASS Integrated Maritime Portable Acoustic Scoring COMNAVMAR Commander, Naval Forces Marianas and Simulation CRE Coral Reef Ecosystems in. inch(es) CRRC Combat Rubber Raiding Craft in.3 cubic inch(es) CSAR Combat Search and Rescue ISR Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance CVN aircraft carrier ISTT Improved Surface Tow Target dB decibel(s) kg kilogram(s) dBA decibel(s), A-weighted kHz kilohertz DDG destroyer km kilometer(s) DICASS Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy lb. pound(s) DS Doppler Sonar LCAC Landing Craft Air Cushion DVLA Distributed Vertical Line Array LCM Landing Craft, Mechanized DWADS Deep Water Active Distributed System LCS Littoral Combat Ship E East LCU Landing Craft, Utility EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone LF Low-Frequency EFH Essential Fish Habitat LHA amphibious assault ship
i Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
LHD amphibious assault ship PUTR Portable Underwater Tracking Range LPD amphibious transport dock R radius
LSD dock landing ship r0 charge radius m meter(s) RDX Royal Demolition Explosive m2 square meter(s) re referenced to m3 cubic meter(s) REXTORP Recoverable Exercise Torpedo MAC Multistatic Active Coherent RHIB Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat MCM Mine Countermeasure Exercise RMMV Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle MF Mid-Frequency RMS Remote Minehunting System mg/L milligrams per liter ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle mi. mile(s) S South MIRC Mariana Islands Range Complex S-A Surface-to-Air MISSILEX Missile Exercise SCUBA Self-Contained Underwater Breathing MITT Mariana Islands Training and Testing Apparatus MIW Mine Warfare SD Swimmer Detection sonar mm millimeter(s) SDST Ship Deployable Seaborne Target MPA Maritime Patrol Aircraft SINKEX Sinking Exercise MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation SMCMEX Mine Countermeasure Exercise – Surface and Management Act SOP standard operating procedure MSO Maritime Security Operations SPL Sound Pressure Level MUS Management Unit Species S-S Surface-to-Surface N North SSBN fleet ballistic missile submarine n/a not applicable SSGN guided missile submarine Navy United States Department of the Navy SSN attack submarine NEPM Non-Explosive Practice Munitions Study Area MITT Study Area NEW Net Explosive Weight STW Strike Warfare nm nautical mile(s) SUA Special Use Airspace nm2 square nautical mile(s) SWATH Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service TACP Tactical Air Control Party NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric TNT trinitrotoluene Administration TORP Torpedoes NSW Naval Special Warfare TORPEX Torpedo Exercise nV nanovolt(s) TRACKEX Tracking Exercise OASIS Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep TTS temporary threshold shift OEIS Overseas Environmental Impact Statement UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle OPAREA Operating Area UAV OPS UAV Operations oz. ounce(s) UISS Unmanned Influence Sweep System
Pb(N3)2 lead azide UNDET Underwater Detonation PbO lead (II) oxide U.S. United States PC Patrol Coastal Ship U.S.C. United States Code PCB polychlorinated biphenyl VHF Very High Frequency PHCRT Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa W West PMUS Pelagic Management Unit Species WPRFMC Western Pacific Regional Fishery PRIA U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas Management Council psu Practical Salinity Unit yd. yard(s) PTS permanent threshold shift YP Yard Patrol Craft
ii Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AND THE ACTION AREA ...... 2-1
2.1 SUMMARY OF THE MARIANA ISLANDS TRAINING AND TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/OVERSEAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ACTION ANALYZED IN THE ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT ..2-1 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF SONAR, ORDNANCE, TARGETS, AND OTHER SYSTEMS ...... 2-7 2.2.1 SONAR AND OTHER ACTIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCES ...... 2-7 2.2.2 ORDNANCE/MUNITIONS ...... 2-8 2.2.3 MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIALS ...... 2-9 2.3 CLASSIFICATION OF NON-IMPULSE AND IMPULSE SOURCES ANALYZED ...... 2-9 2.3.1 SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES ...... 2-10 2.3.2 SUMMARY OF NON-IMPULSE AND IMPULSE SOURCES ...... 2-12 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA ...... 2-13 2.5 OVERVIEW OF THE STRESSORS ANALYZED FOR EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS ...... 2-18
3 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ...... 3-1
3.1 WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ...... 3-2 3.1.1 BOTTOMFISH MANAGEMENT UNIT ...... 3-4 3.1.1.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat ...... 3-4 3.1.1.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern ...... 3-8 3.1.1.3 Figures and Maps ...... 3-8 3.1.2 CRUSTACEANS MANAGEMENT UNIT ...... 3-13 3.1.2.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat ...... 3-13 3.1.2.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern ...... 3-13 3.1.2.3 Figures and Maps ...... 3-13 3.1.3 CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT UNIT ...... 3-18 3.1.3.1 Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa Complex ...... 3-18 3.1.3.2 Figures and Maps ...... 3-18 3.1.3.3 Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa Complex ...... 3-29 3.1.4 PELAGIC MANAGEMENT UNIT ...... 3-31 3.1.4.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat ...... 3-31 3.1.4.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern ...... 3-34 3.1.4.3 Figures and Maps ...... 3-34 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF HABITATS ...... 3-36 3.2.1 WATER COLUMN ...... 3-39 3.2.1.1 Currents, Circulation Patterns, and Water Masses ...... 3-40 3.2.1.2 Water Column Characteristics and Processes ...... 3-41 3.2.1.3 Bathymetry ...... 3-44 3.2.1.4 Water Column Essential Fish Habitat ...... 3-47 3.2.2 SUBSTRATES ...... 3-47 3.2.2.1 Soft Shores ...... 3-54 3.2.2.2 Hard Shores ...... 3-54
iii Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
3.2.2.3 Soft Bottoms ...... 3-55 3.2.2.4 Hard Bottoms ...... 3-56 3.2.2.5 Artificial Structures ...... 3-57 3.2.3 BIOGENIC HABITATS ...... 3-62 3.2.3.1 Vegetated Shores ...... 3-62 3.2.3.2 Submerged Rooted Vegetation Beds ...... 3-63 3.2.3.3 Attached Macroalgae Beds ...... 3-70 3.2.3.4 Coral Reefs and Communities ...... 3-70
4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ...... 4-1
4.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ...... 4-1 4.1.1 ACOUSTIC STRESSORS ...... 4-3 4.1.1.1 Non-Impulsive Stressors ...... 4-7 4.1.1.2 Impulsive Stressors ...... 4-15 4.1.2 ENERGY STRESSORS ...... 4-29 4.1.2.1 Electromagnetic Devices ...... 4-29 4.1.3 PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE AND STRIKE STRESSORS ...... 4-31 4.1.3.1 Vessels...... 4-32 4.1.3.2 In-Water Devices ...... 4-37 4.1.3.3 Military Expended Materials ...... 4-38 4.1.3.4 Seafloor Devices ...... 4-46 4.1.4 CONTAMINANT STRESSORS ...... 4-47 4.1.4.1 Explosives and Explosive Byproducts ...... 4-47 4.1.4.2 Metals ...... 4-49 4.1.4.3 Chemicals ...... 4-50 4.1.4.4 Other Materials ...... 4-51 4.1.5 STUDY AREA COMBINED IMPACT OF STRESSORS ...... 4-52
5 MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 5-1
5.1 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES ...... 5-1 5.2 MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 5-1
6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 6-1
7 REFERENCES ...... 7-1
APPENDIX A LIST OF FEDERALLY MANAGED SPECIES ...... A-1
APPENDIX B PRIMARY HABITAT TYPES DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT...... A-1
B PRIMARY HABITAT TYPES DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ...... B-1 B.1 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT DESIGNATIONS BY PRIMARY HABITAT TYPE FOR EACH SPECIES/MANAGEMENT UNIT AND LIFE STAGE ...... B-1
iv Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2-1: TYPICAL TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE ACTION AREA ...... 2-2 TABLE 2-2: IMPULSE TRAINING AND TESTING SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED ...... 2-10 TABLE 2-3: NON-IMPULSE TRAINING AND TESTING SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED ...... 2-11 TABLE 2-4: ANNUAL USE OF NON-IMPULSE SOURCES DURING TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE ACTION AREA ...... 2-12 TABLE 2-5: ANNUAL NUMBER OF IMPULSE SOURCE DETONATIONS DURING TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE ACTION AREA ...... 2-13 TABLE 2-6: NEARSHORE TRAINING AND TESTING AREAS ...... 2-17 TABLE 2-7: DESCRIPTION OF STRESSORS ...... 2-19 TABLE 2-8: TRAINING ACTIVITIES OCCURRING IN THE ACTION AREA ...... 2-23 TABLE 2-9: PROPOSED NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE ACTION AREA ...... 2-31 TABLE 2-10: PROPOSED NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE ACTION AREA ...... 2-32 TABLE 2-11: PROPOSED OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH TESTING ACTIVITIES IN THE ACTION AREA ...... 2-34 TABLE 3-1: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN DESIGNATIONS FOR THE MARIANA ARCHIPELAGO FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN MANAGEMENT UNIT ...... 3-5 TABLE 3-2: CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN CRITERIA DESIGNATIONS IN THE MARIANA ARCHIPELAGO ...... 3-31 TABLE 3-3: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABITAT AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN DESIGNATED BY WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ...... 3-33 TABLE 3-4: COASTAL AND MARINE ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION STANDARD CROSSWALK ...... 3-36 TABLE 3-5: WATER COLUMN ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABIT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN REFERENCES WITHIN THE MARIANA ISLANDS TRAINING AND TESTING STUDY AREA ...... 3-47 TABLE 3-6: SUBSTRATE ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABIT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN REFERENCES WITHIN THE MARIANA ISLANDS TRAINING AND TESTING STUDY AREA ...... 3-48 TABLE 3-7: BIOGENIC HABITATS IN FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL AREA AND THEIR ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT SYNONYMS ...... 3-62 TABLE 4-1: LIST OF STRESSORS ANALYZED ...... 4-2 TABLE 4-2: STRESSORS BY WARFARE AND TESTING AREA ...... 4-3 TABLE 4-3: SONAR AND OTHER ACTIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCE CLASSES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION (ANNUAL HOURS OR NUMBER OF ITEMS) ...... 4-8 TABLE 4-4: REPRESENTATIVE ORDNANCE, NET EXPLOSIVE WEIGHTS, AND DETONATION DEPTHS ...... 4-16 TABLE 4-5: ESTIMATED EXPLOSIVE EFFECTS RANGES FOR FISH WITH SWIM BLADDERS ...... 4-17 TABLE 4-6: TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES THAT INCLUDE SEAFLOOR EXPLOSIONS ...... 4-19 TABLE 4-7: BOTTOM DETONATIONS FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES UNDER PROPOSED ACTION ...... 4-23 TABLE 4-8: EXPLOSIONS IN THE WATER COLUMN FROM TRAINING ACTIVITIES (EXCLUDING EXPLOSION ON OR NEAR THE BOTTOM), AND THEIR IMPACT ON WATER COLUMN ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ...... 4-24 TABLE 4-9: EXPLOSIONS IN THE WATER COLUMN FROM TESTING ACTIVITIES (EXCLUDING EXPLOSION ON OR NEAR THE BOTTOM), AND THEIR IMPACT ON WATER COLUMN ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ...... 4-26 TABLE 4-10: REPRESENTATIVE WEAPONS NOISE CHARACTERISTICS...... 4-27 TABLE 4-11: REPRESENTATIVE VESSEL TYPES, LENGTHS, AND SPEEDS ...... 4-32 TABLE 4-12: REPRESENTATIVE TYPES, SIZES, AND SPEEDS OF IN-WATER DEVICES ...... 4-37 TABLE 4-13: ANNUAL NUMBERS AND IMPACTS OF MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIALS PROPOSED FOR USE UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION...... 4-44 TABLE 4-14: BYPRODUCTS FROM THE UNDERWATER DETONATION OF A HIGH BLAST EXPLOSIVE ...... 4-48 TABLE 4-15: FAILURE RATES AND LOW-ORDER DETONATION RATES OF MILITARY ORDNANCE ...... 4-48 TABLE 4-16: CONSTITUENTS REMAINING AFTER LOW-ORDER DETONATIONS AND FROM UNCONSUMED EXPLOSIVES ...... 4-49 TABLE 4-17: COMBINED IMPACT ON MARINE SUBSTRATES FROM THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 4-52 TABLE 5-1: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 5-2 TABLE 6-1: POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FROM EACH STRESSOR ...... 6-1
v Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1: THE AT-SEA PORTION OF THE MARIANA ISLANDS TRAINING AND TESTING STUDY AREA COMPRISES THE ACTION AREA .. 2-14 FIGURE 2-2: MARIANA ISLANDS RANGE COMPLEX AIRSPACE ...... 2-15 FIGURE 2-3: NEARSHORE TRAINING AND TESTING AREAS ...... 2-16 FIGURE 3-1: WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL JURISDICTION WITHIN THE MARIANA ISLANDS TRAINING AND TESTING STUDY AREA ...... 3-2 FIGURE 3-2: WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL GEOGRAPHIC AREA ...... 3-3 FIGURE 3-3: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL EGGS AND LARVAL LIFESTAGES OF BOTTOMFISH DESIGNATED ON GUAM, TINIAN, AND FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-9 FIGURE 3-4: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL JUVENILE AND ADULT LIFESTAGES OF BOTTOMFISHES DESIGNATED ON FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-10 FIGURE 3-5: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL JUVENILE AND ADULT LIFESTAGES OF BOTTOMFISH AND HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN DESIGNATED ON GUAM ...... 3-11 FIGURE 3-6: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL JUVENILE AND ADULT LIFESTAGES OF BOTTOMFISH AND HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN DESIGNATED ON TINIAN ...... 3-12 FIGURE 3-7: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL EGGS AND LARVAL LIFESTAGES OF CRUSTACEANS DESIGNATED ON GUAM, TINIAN, AND FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-14 FIGURE 3-8: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL JUVENILE AND ADULT LIFESTAGES OF CRUSTACEANS DESIGNATED ON GUAM ...... 3-15 FIGURE 3-9: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL JUVENILE AND ADULT LIFESTAGES OF CRUSTACEANS DESIGNATED ON TINIAN ...... 3-16 FIGURE 3-10: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL JUVENILE AND ADULT LIFESTAGES OF CRUSTACEANS DESIGNATED ON FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-17 FIGURE 3-11: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR VARIOUS LIFESTAGES OF THE CURRENTLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA-CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM) ON GUAM, TINIAN, AND FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-19 FIGURE 3-12: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL JUVENILE AND ADULT LIFESTAGES OF THE CURRENTLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA- CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM ON GUAM ...... 3-20 FIGURE 3-13: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL JUVENILE AND ADULT LIFESTAGES OF FLAGTAILS AND MULLETS (CURRENTLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA-CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM) ON GUAM ...... 3-21 FIGURE 3-14: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL ADULT LIFESTAGES OF RUDDERFISHES (CURRENTLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA-CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM) ON GUAM ...... 3-22 FIGURE 3-15: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL JUVENILE AND ADULT LIFESTAGES OF THE CURRENTLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA- CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM ON TINIAN ...... 3-23 FIGURE 3-16: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL JUVENILE AND ADULT LIFESTAGES OF FLAGTAILS AND MULLETS (CURRENTLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA-CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM) ON TINIAN ...... 3-24 FIGURE 3-17: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL ADULT LIFESTAGES OF RUDDERFISHES (CURRENTLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA-CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM) ON TINIAN...... 3-25 FIGURE 3-18: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL JUVENILE AND ADULT LIFESTAGES OF THE CURRENTLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA- CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM ON FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-26 FIGURE 3-19: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL JUVENILE AND ADULT LIFESTAGES OF THE FLAGTAILS AND MULLETS (CURRENTLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA-CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM) ON FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-27 FIGURE 3-20: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL ADULT LIFESTAGES OF RUDDERFISHES (CURRENTLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA-CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM) ON FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-28 FIGURE 3-21: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL LIFESTAGES OF THE POTENTIALLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA-CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM AND HABIT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN DESIGNATED ON GUAM, TINIAN, AND FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-30 FIGURE 3-22: ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT FOR ALL LIFESTAGES OF PELAGIC FISHES DESIGNATED ON GUAM, TINIAN, AND FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-35 FIGURE 3-23: THREE-DIMENSIONAL REPRESENTATION OF A CONTINENTAL MARGIN AND ABYSSAL ZONE ...... 3-40 FIGURE 3-24: SURFACE CIRCULATION OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN AND OUTLINE OF THE NORTH PACIFIC SUBTROPICAL GYRE ...... 3-41 FIGURE 3-25: SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE SHOWING THE SEASONAL VARIATION IN THE MARIANA ISLANDS TRAINING AND TESTING STUDY AREA ...... 3-43 FIGURE 3-26: SEAFLOOR SURROUNDING THE MARIANA ISLANDS...... 3-46 FIGURE 3-27: BOTTOM SUBSTRATE AROUND GUAM ...... 3-49
vi Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
FIGURE 3-28: BOTTOM SUBSTRATE IN APRA HARBOR ...... 3-50 FIGURE 3-29: BOTTOM SUBSTRATE AROUND SAIPAN ...... 3-51 FIGURE 3-30: BOTTOM SUBSTRATE AROUND TINIAN...... 3-52 FIGURE 3-31: BOTTOM SUBSTRATE AROUND FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-53 FIGURE 3-32: KNOWN SHIPWRECKS AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS WITHIN 12 NAUTICAL MILES OF GUAM, ROTA, TINIAN, AND SAIPAN ...... 3-59 FIGURE 3-33: FISH AGGREGATING DEVICES SURROUNDING GUAM ...... 3-60 FIGURE 3-34: FISH AGGREGATING DEVICES AROUND TINIAN AND SAIPAN ...... 3-61 FIGURE 3-35: DISTRIBUTION OF SEAGRASS AND MANGROVE COMMUNITIES IN THE MARIANA ISLANDS TRAINING AND TESTING STUDY AREA: (A) GUAM, (B) APRA HARBOR, AND (C) TINIAN AND SAIPAN ...... 3-63 FIGURE 3-36: MARINE VEGETATION SURROUNDING GUAM ...... 3-65 FIGURE 3-37: MARINE VEGETATION IN APRA HARBOR ...... 3-66 FIGURE 3-38: MARINE VEGETATION SURROUNDING TINIAN ...... 3-67 FIGURE 3-39: MARINE VEGETATION SURROUNDING SAIPAN ...... 3-68 FIGURE 3-40: MARINE VEGETATION SURROUNDING FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-69 FIGURE 3-41: BENTHIC HABITATS OF THE SASA BAY...... 3-73 FIGURE 3-42: BENTHIC HABITATS OF SAN LUIS BEACH ...... 3-74 FIGURE 3-43: BENTHIC HABITATS OF KILO WHARF ...... 3-75 FIGURE 3-44: BENTHIC HABITATS OF GLASS BREAKWATER ...... 3-76 FIGURE 3-45: CORAL COVERAGE SURROUNDING TINIAN...... 3-77 FIGURE 3-46: CORAL COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING FARALLON DE MEDINILLA ...... 3-80 FIGURE 4-1: ESTIMATE OF SPREADING LOSS FOR A 235 DECIBELS REFERENCED TO 1 MICROPASCAL SOUND SOURCE ASSUMING SIMPLE SPHERICAL SPREADING LOSS ...... 4-10 FIGURE 4-2: PREDICTION OF DISTANCE TO 10 PERCENT MORTALITY OF MARINE INVERTEBRATES EXPOSED TO AN UNDERWATER EXPLOSION ...... 4-18 FIGURE 4-3: MINE NEUTRALIZATION AND BEACH LANDING SITES IN RELATION TO MARINE VEGETATION ...... 4-21 FIGURE 4-4: MINE NEUTRALIZATION SITES AND BEACH LANDING SITES IN RELATION TO CORAL ...... 4-22 FIGURE 4-5: TINIAN AMPHIBIOUS LANDING BEACHES IN RELATION TO MARINE VEGETATION ...... 4-34 FIGURE 4-6: TINIAN AMPHIBIOUS LANDING BEACHES IN RELATION TO CORAL ...... 4-35 FIGURE 4-7: A MK-58 SMOKE FLOAT OBSERVED IN AN AREA DOMINATED BY CORAL RUBBLE ON THE CONTINENTAL SLOPE ...... 4-40 FIGURE 4-8: AN UNIDENTIFIED, NON-MILITARY STRUCTURE OBSERVED ON THE RIDGE SYSTEM RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE CONTINENTAL SHELF BREAK ...... 4-40 FIGURE 4-9: (LEFT) A 76-MILLIMETER CARTRIDGE CASING ON SOFT BOTTOM. (RIGHT) A BLACKBELLY ROSEFISH (HELICOLENUS DACTYLOPTERUS) USING THE CASING FOR SHELTER WHEN DISTURBED ...... 4-41
vii Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
viii Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
1 INTRODUCTION As required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the purpose of this document is to present the findings of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment (EFHA) conducted by the United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy). The objective of this EFHA is to evaluate how military training and testing activities proposed to occur within the Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT) Study Area (Study Area) may affect EFH designated by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC). This EFHA includes a description of the Navy’s Proposed Action, an overview of the EFH designated within the activity area, an analysis of the direct and cumulative effects on EFH for the managed fish and their food resources, and proposed mitigation measures selected to minimize any potential adverse effects that could result from the Proposed Action.
Additional details regarding the MITT activities, the affected environment, and the potential environmental effects associated with ongoing and proposed military activities are contained in the Draft MITT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS) (U.S. Department of the Navy 2013). The Final Marine Resources Assessment for the Japan and Mariana Archipelagos (U.S. Department of the Navy 2013) also contains comprehensive descriptions of the marine environment, including climate; marine geology; physical, chemical, and biological oceanography; marine habitats; and protected species in the Study Area. This document is available to the public and can be obtained from the Navy’s Marine Resources Assessments website.1
1https://www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/marine_resources/marine_resource_assess ments.html
1-1 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1-2 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AND THE ACTION AREA 2.1 SUMMARY OF THE MARIANA ISLANDS TRAINING AND TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/OVERSEAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ACTION ANALYZED IN THE ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT The Navy prepared an EIS/OEIS to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with two categories of military readiness activities: training and testing. The EIS/OEIS also assessed sonar maintenance and gunnery exercises (GUNEXs) conducted concurrently with ship transits and pierside sonar activity as part of overhaul, modernization, maintenance, and repair activities. The Action covered in this EFHA is the training and testing activities described in Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) in the MITT EIS/OEIS. The Action Area is described in detail below in Section 2.4 (Description of the Action Area).
The Navy, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Coast Guard routinely train in the Action Area in preparation for national defense missions. Typical training and testing activities and exercises covered in this EFHA are briefly described in Table 2-1, and in more detail within the MITT Draft EIS/OEIS (Alternative 1) (U.S. Department of the Navy 2013). Each military training activity described meets a requirement that can be traced ultimately to requirements set forth by the National Command Authority.2
The Navy and other services have been conducting military readiness activities in the Action Area for decades. The tempo and types of training and testing activities have fluctuated because of the introduction of new technologies, the evolving nature of international events, advances in warfighting doctrine and procedures, and changes in force structure (e.g., organization of ships, weapons, and military personnel). Such developments influence changes in the frequency, duration, intensity, and location of required training and testing activities. The Navy categorizes training and testing activities into functional warfare areas called primary mission areas. Most training and testing activities analyzed in the MITT EIS/OEIS and EFHA fall into the following eight primary mission areas:
• Anti-Air Warfare • Strike Warfare • Amphibious Warfare (AMW) • Anti-Surface Warfare • Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) • Electronic Warfare • Mine Warfare (MIW) • Naval Special Warfare
Not all activities can be categorized in one of these areas. The research and acquisition community (i.e., testing community) also categorizes some, but not all, of its testing activities under these primary mission areas. Testing activities analyzed in the MITT EIS/OEIS and in the EFHA are categorized into the following areas:
• Life Cycle Activities Shipboard Protection Systems and Swimmer Defense Testing
2 “National Command Authority” is a term used by the U.S. military and government to refer to the ultimate lawful source of military orders. The term refers collectively to the President of the United States (as Commander-in-Chief) and the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
2-1 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
• New Ship Construction • Naval Research
Additionally, some activities are described in the EIS/OEIS as Major Training Activities and Other Activities. A summary of the training and testing activities included as part of the Action is presented in Tables 2-8 through 2-11 at the end of this chapter. Data in the tables includes the name of the activity, the number of times per year the activity occurs, annual number of ordnance used during the activity (explosive and non-explosive), and the location(s) where the activity occurs.
Table 2-1: Typical Training and Testing Activities in the Action Area
Activity Name Activity Description Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Air) Surface ship crews defend against threat aircraft or missiles with guns. (GUNEX [S-A]) – Large-caliber Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Air) Surface ship crews defend against threat aircraft or missiles with guns. (GUNEX [S-A]) – Medium-caliber Missile Exercise (Surface-to-Air) Surface ship crews defend against threat missiles and aircraft with (MISSILEX [S-A]) missiles. Strike Warfare (STW) CSAR units use helicopters, night vision and identification systems, and Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) insertion and extraction techniques under hostile conditions to locate, rescue, and extract personnel. Amphibious Warfare (AMW) Naval Surface Fire Support Exercise – Land-Based Target Surface ship crews use large-caliber guns to fire on land-based targets in support of forces ashore. (FIREX [Land]) Amphibious shipping, landing craft, and elements of the Marine Air Ground Amphibious Rehearsal, No Landing Task Force rehearse amphibious landing operations without conducting an actual landing on shore. Forces move ashore from ships at sea for the immediate execution of Amphibious Assault inland objectives. Small unit forces move swiftly from ships at sea for a specific short-term Amphibious Raid mission. Raids are quick operations with as few Marines as possible. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Ops Military units employ unmanned aerial vehicles to launch, operate, and (UAV OPS) gather intelligence for specified amphibious missions. Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) Gunnery Exercise (Air-to-Surface) – Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews, including embarked personnel, use Small-caliber small-caliber guns to engage surface targets. Gunnery Exercise (Air-to-Surface) – Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews, including embarked personnel, use Medium-caliber medium-caliber guns to engage surface targets. Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) – Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire precision-guided and unguided Rocket rockets against surface targets. (MISSILEX [A-S] – Rocket) Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) – Missile Fixed-wing and helicopter aircrews fire precision-guided missiles against surface targets. (MISSILEX [A-S] – Missile) Fixed-winged, helicopter, and ship crews illuminate enemy targets with Laser Targeting (at sea) lasers.
2-2 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-1: Typical Training and Testing Activities in the Action Area (continued)
Activity Name Activity Description Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) (continued)
Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface) Fixed-wing aircrews deliver bombs against surface targets. (BOMBEX [A-S]) Torpedo Exercise (Submarine-to- Submarine attacks a surface target using exercise or live-fire torpedoes. Surface) Missile Exercise (Surface-to-Surface) Surface ship crews defend against threat missiles and other surface ships (MISSILEX [S-S]) with missiles. Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface (Ship) – Large-caliber Ship crews engage surface targets with ship’s large-caliber guns. (GUNEX S-S [Ship]) Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Ship crews engage surface targets with ship’s small- and medium-caliber (Ship) – Small- and Medium-caliber guns. (GUNEX S-S [Ship]) Aircraft, ship, and submarine crews deliver ordnance on a seaborne target, Sinking Exercise (SINKEX) usually a deactivated ship, which is deliberately sunk using multiple weapon systems.
Gunnery Exercise Surface-to-Surface Small boat crews engage surface targets with small- and medium-caliber (Boat) weapons. (GUNEX S-S [Boat]) Helicopter and surface ship crews conduct a suite of Maritime Security Maritime Security Operations (MSO) Operations (e.g., Vessel Search, Board, and Seizure; Maritime Interdiction Operations; Force Protection; and Anti-Piracy Operation). This event is similar to the training event missile exercise (air-to-surface). Test may involve fixed-wing aircraft launching missiles at surface maritime Air-to-Surface Missile Test targets to evaluate the weapon system or as part of another system’s integration test. A kinetic energy weapon uses stored electromagnetic energy released in a Kinetic Energy Weapon Testing burst to accelerate a non-explosive projectile. Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Various systems (e.g., towed arrays and defense systems) are employed Countermeasure Testing to detect, localize, and track incoming weapons.
Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise – Helicopter crews search, track, and detect submarines. Exercise torpedoes Helicopter may be used during this event. (TRACKEX/TORPEX – Helo) Tracking Exercise – Maritime Patrol Maritime patrol aircraft crews search, detect and track submarines using Aircraft Extended Echo Ranging explosive source sonobuoys or multistatic active coherent system. Sonobuoys Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise – Maritime patrol aircraft crews search, detect, and track submarines. Maritime Patrol Aircraft Recoverable air launched torpedoes may be employed against submarine targets. (TRACKEX/TORPEX – MPA) Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise – Surface ship crews search, track, and detect submarines. Exercise Surface torpedoes may be used during this event. (TRACKEX/TORPEX – Surface)
Tracking Exercise/Torpedo Exercise – Submarine crews search, detect, and track submarines and surface ships. Submarine Exercise torpedoes may be used during this event. (TRACKEX/TORPEX – Sub)
2-3 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-1: Typical Training and Testing Activities in the Action Area (continued)
Activity Name Activity Description Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) (continued) This event is similar to the training event ASW TRACKEX – Maritime Patrol Aircraft. The test evaluates the sensors and systems used by maritime Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test – patrol aircraft to detect and track submarines and to ensure that aircraft Maritime Patrol Aircraft (Sonobuoy) systems used to deploy the tracking systems perform to specifications and meet operational requirements. This event is similar to the training event torpedo exercise. The Test evaluates ASW systems onboard rotary-wing and fixed-wing aircraft and Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Test the system’s ability to search for, detect, classify, localize, track, and attack a submarine or similar target. Some tests from fixed-wing aircraft will involve releasing torpedoes and sonobuoys from high altitudes. The BAMS system will fill a complementary role to the P-8A aircraft, providing maritime reconnaissance support to the Navy. The current BAMS Broad Area Maritime Surveillance system in testing and development is called “Triton.” It will be equipped (BAMS) – MQ-4C Triton Testing with electro-optical/infrared sensors, can remain on station for 30 hours, and fly at approximately 60,000 feet (18,288 meters). Torpedo (Explosive and Non-explosive) Air, surface, or submarine crews employ live/exercise torpedoes against Testing submarines or surface vessels. At-sea testing to ensure systems are fully functional in an open ocean At-sea Sonar Testing environment. Major Training Activities A 10-day at-sea and ashore exercise which brings different branches of the United States (U.S.) military together in a joint environment that includes planning and execution efforts as well as military training activities at sea, Joint Expeditionary Exercise in the air, and ashore. More than 8,000 personnel may participate and could include the combined assets of a Carrier Strike Group and Expeditionary Strike Group, Marine Expeditionary Units, Army Infantry Units, and Air Force aircraft. A 10-day at-sea and ashore exercise in which up to three Carrier Strike Joint Multi-Strike Group Exercise Groups integrated with U.S. Air Force and U.S. Marine Corps forces would conduct at-sea training and STW exercises simultaneously. A 10-day at-sea and shore exercise which conducts over-the-horizon, ship- to-objective maneuver for the elements of the Expeditionary Strike Group Marine Air Ground Task Force Exercise and the Amphibious Marine Air Ground Task Force. The exercise utilizes (Amphibious) – Battalion all elements of the Marine Air Ground Task Force (Amphibious), conducting training activities ashore with logistic support of the Expeditionary Strike Group and conducting amphibious landings.
2-4 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-1: Typical Training and Testing Activities in the Action Area (continued)
Activity Name Activity Description Major Training Activities (continued) A 10-day at-sea and ashore exercise similar to Marine Air Ground Task Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force (Amphibious) – Battalion, but task organized to conduct a specific Force Exercise mission (e.g., Humanitarian Assistance, Disaster Relief, Non-combatant Evacuation Operations). Electronic Warfare (EW) Aircraft, surface ship, and submarine crews attempt to control portions of Electronic Warfare Operations the electromagnetic spectrum used by enemy systems to degrade or deny (EW OPS) the enemy’s ability to take defensive actions. Surface ships defend against an attack by deploying chaff, a radar- Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise reflective material, which disrupt threat targeting and missile guidance (CHAFFEX) – Ship radars. Fixed-winged aircraft and helicopter crews defend against an attack by Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise deploying chaff, a radar-reflective material, which disrupt threat targeting (CHAFFEX) – Aircraft and missile guidance radars. Flare tests evaluate newly developed or enhanced flares, flare dispensing equipment, or modified aircraft systems against flare deployment. Tests may also train pilots and aircrew in the use of newly developed or modified Flare Test flare deployment systems. Flare tests are often conducted with other test events, and are not typically conducted as standalone tests. Chaff and flares are expended for this test event. Mine Warfare (MIW) Naval MIW activities conducted at various ports and harbors, in support of Civilian Port Defense maritime homeland defense/security. Fixed-winged aircraft and vessel crews drop/launch non-explosive mine Mine Laying shapes.
Mine Neutralization – Explosive Personnel disable threat mines. Explosive charges may be used. Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Limpet Mine Neutralization Navy divers place a small charge on a simulated underwater mine. System/Shock Wave Generator Submarine Mine Exercise Submarine crews practice detecting mines in a designated area. Airborne Mine Countermeasure (MCM) – Helicopter aircrews detect mines using towed and laser mine detection Mine Detection systems (e.g., AN/AQS-20, Airborne Laser Mine Detection System). Mine Countermeasure Exercise – Towed Surface ship crews detect and avoid mines while navigating restricted Sonar areas or channels using towed active sonar. Mine Countermeasure Exercise – Mine countermeasure ship crews detect, locate, identify, and avoid mines Surface (SMCMEX) while navigating restricted areas or channels using active sonar. Mine Neutralization – Remotely Helicopter aircrews disable mines using remotely operated underwater Operated Vehicle Sonar vehicles. Ship crews and helicopter aircrews tow systems (e.g., Organic and Surface Mine Countermeasure (MCM) – Towed Influence Sweep, MK 104/105) through the water that are designed to Mine Neutralization disable or trigger mines. Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Military personnel train for covert insertion and extraction into target areas Personnel Insertion/Extraction using helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft (insertion only), small boats, and submersibles.
2-5 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-1: Typical Training and Testing Activities in the Action Area (continued)
Activity Name Activity Description Naval Special Warfare (NSW) (continued) Military personnel train for controlling of combat support aircraft and Direct Action (Tactical Air Control Party providing target designation, airspace de-confliction, and terminal control [TACP]/Joint Tactical Air Control) for Close Air Support. Teams also train in use of small arms and mortars. Underwater Demolition Navy divers conduct training and certification in placing underwater Qualification/Certification demolition charges. Intelligence, Surveillance, Special Warfare units train to collect and report battlefield intelligence. Reconnaissance (ISR) Navy divers train in survey of underwater conditions and features in Underwater Survey preparation for insertion, extraction, or intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance activities. Other Training Activities Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance In-port and at-sea maintenance of sonar systems. Submarine Sonar Maintenance In-port and at-sea maintenance of sonar systems.
Small Boat Attack Small boats or personal watercraft conduct attack activities on units afloat. Submarine crews locate underwater objects and ships while transiting out Submarine Navigation of port. U.S. Coast Guard and military personnel train with ships, fixed-wing and Search and Rescue at Sea rotary aircraft to locate and rescue missing personnel and vessels at sea.
Precision Anchoring Releasing of anchors in designated locations. New Ship Construction Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Mission Ships and their supporting platforms (e.g., helicopters, unmanned aerial Package Testing vehicles) detect, localize, and prosecute submarines. Mine Countermeasures (MCM) Mission Ships conduct MCM operations. Package Testing Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) Mission Ships and their supporting platforms (e.g., helicopters, unmanned aerial Package Testing vehicles) detect, localize, and prosecute surface vessels.
2-6 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-1: Typical Training and Testing Activities in the Action Area (continued)
Activity Name Activity Description Life Cycle Activities Ship Signature Testing Tests ship and submarine radars, electromagnetic, or acoustic signatures. Shipboard Protection Systems and Swimmer Defense Testing Pierside Integrated Swimmer Defense Swimmer defense testing ensures that systems can effectively detect, characterize, verify, and engage swimmer/diver threats in harbor environments. Naval Research North Pacific Acoustic Lab Philippine The experiment area encompasses international waters. The initial Sea 2018–19 Experiment (Deep Water) experiment was completed in May 2011; an acoustic tomography array, a distributed vertical line array (DVLA), and moorings were deployed in the deep-water environment of the northwestern Philippine Sea. The acoustic tomography array and DVLA have remained in situ at the experiment site since that time, collecting oceanographic and acoustic data used to study deep-water propagation and to characterize the temperature and velocity structure in this oceanographically complex and highly dynamic region. In addition, data will be collected during two periods of intensive experimental at-sea operations in May and July of 2018. During fall 2018, data will be collected passively by remotely sensing seagliders. Research vessels, acoustic test sources, side scan sonar, ocean gliders, the existing moored acoustic tomographic array and distributed vertical line array, and other oceanographic data collection equipment will be used to collect information on the ocean environment. The final phases of the experiment will be completed during March–May 2019. The resulting analyses will aid in developing a more complete understanding of deep water sound propagation and the temperature-velocity profile of the water column in this part of the world.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF SONAR, ORDNANCE, TARGETS, AND OTHER SYSTEMS The Navy uses a variety of sensors, platforms, weapons, and other devices, including ones used to ensure the safety of Sailors and Marines, to meet its mission. Training and testing with these systems may introduce acoustic (sound) energy into the environment. This section presents and organizes sonar systems, ordnance, munitions, targets, and other systems in a manner intended to facilitate understanding of the activities in which these systems are used.
2.2.1 SONAR AND OTHER ACTIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCES Modern sonar technology includes a variety of sonar sensor and processing systems. In concept, the simplest active sonar emits sound waves, or “pings,” sent out in multiple directions. The sound waves then reflect off of the target object in multiple directions. The sonar source calculates the time it takes for the reflected sound waves to return; this calculation determines the distance to the target object. More sophisticated active sonar systems emit a ping and then rapidly scan or listen to the sound waves in a specific area. This provides both distance to the target and directional information. Even more advanced sonar systems use multiple receivers to listen to echoes from several directions simultaneously and provide efficient detection of both direction and distance. It should be noted that active sonar is rarely used continuously throughout the listed activities. In general, when sonar is in use, the sonar “pings” occur at intervals, referred to as a duty cycle, and the signals themselves are very short in duration. For example, sonar that emits a 1-second ping every 10 seconds has a 10 percent duty cycle. The Navy utilizes sonar systems and other acoustic sensors in support of a variety of mission
2-7 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
requirements. Primary uses include the detection of and defense against submarines (ASW) and mines (MIW), safe navigation and effective communications, use of unmanned undersea vehicles, and oceanographic surveys.
2.2.2 ORDNANCE/MUNITIONS Most ordnance and munitions used during training and testing activities fall into three basic categories: projectiles, missiles, and bombs. Explosive ordnance can be further defined by net explosive weight (NEW), which is the actual weight in pounds of the explosive substance without the packaging, casings, bullets, etc. Net explosive weight is a measure of the strength of bombs and other explosives. For example, a 2,000-pound (lb.) (907.2-kilogram [kg]) bomb may have anywhere from 600 to 1,000 lb. (272.2 to 453.8 kg) of NEW.
Projectiles are fired during GUNEXs from a variety of weapons, including pistols and rifles to large- caliber turret-mounted guns on the decks of military ships. Projectiles can be either explosive munitions (e.g., certain cannon shells) or non-explosive practice munitions (NEPM) (e.g., rifle/pistol bullets). Explosive rounds can be fused to either explode on impact or in the air (i.e., just prior to impact). Projectiles are broken down into three basic categories: small caliber (up to approximately 0.5 inch [in.]), medium caliber (greater than 0.5 in., up to approximately 2.24 in. in diameter), and larger caliber (up to 5 in.).
Missiles are rocket- or jet-propelled munitions used to attack ships, aircraft, and land-based targets, as well as defend ships against other missiles. Guidance systems and advanced fusing technology ensure that missiles reliably impact on or detonate near their intended target. Missiles are categorized according to their intended target and can be further classified according to NEW. Rockets are included within the category of missiles.
Bombs are unpowered munitions dropped from aircraft on land and water targets. Bombs are in two categories: general-purpose bombs and subscale practice bombs. Similar to missiles, bombs are further classified according to the NEW of the bomb.
There are other munitions and ordnance used in naval at-sea training and testing activities that do not fit into one of the above categories and are discussed below:
• Demolition Charges: Divers place explosive charges in the marine environment during some training and testing activities. These activities may include the use of timed charges, in which the charge is placed, a timer is started, and the charge detonates at the set time. Munitions, which are typically composed of C-4 explosive with the necessary detonators and cords, are used to support mine neutralization, demolition, and other warfare activities. All demolition charges are further classified according to the NEW of the charge. • Anti-Swimmer Grenades: Maritime security forces use hand grenades to defend against enemy Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) divers. • Torpedoes: Explosive torpedoes are required in some training and testing activities. Torpedoes are described as either lightweight or heavyweight and are further categorized according to the NEW. • Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys: Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoys include Improved Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoys and mini sound-source seeker sonobuoys that use explosive charges as the active sound source instead of electrically produced sounds.
2-8 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
2.2.3 MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIALS Navy training and testing activities may introduce or expend various items, such as munitions and targets, into the marine environment as a direct result of using these items for their intended purpose. In addition to these items, some accessory materials—related to the carriage or release of these items— may also be released. These materials, referred to as military expended materials, are not recovered, and are analyzed as potential stressors. For detailed information on military expended materials used in the Action Area, refer to Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) of the MITT EIS/OEIS.
Military expended materials analyzed in this EFHA include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Sonobuoys: Some sonobuoys consist of decelerators/parachutes, and the sonobuoys themselves. • Torpedo Launch Accessories: Torpedoes are usually recovered; however, materials such as decelerators/parachutes used with air-dropped torpedoes, guidance wires used with submarine-launched torpedoes, and ballast weights are expended. Explosive-filled torpedoes expend torpedo fragments. • Decelerators/Parachutes: Aircraft-launched sonobuoys, lightweight torpedoes (such as the MK 46 and MK 54), illumination flares, and targets use nylon decelerators/parachutes ranging in size from 18 to 48 in. (46 to 122 centimeters [cm]) in diameter. • Projectiles and Bombs: Projectiles, bombs, or fragments from explosive projectiles and bombs are expended during training and testing exercises. These items are primarily constructed of lead (most small-caliber projectiles) or steel (medium- and large-caliber projectiles and all bombs). • Missiles and Rockets: Non-explosive missiles and missile fragments from explosive missiles are expended during training and testing activities. Propellant, and any explosive material involved, is consumed during firing and detonation. Rockets are similar to missiles, and both non-explosive and fragments may be expended. • Countermeasures: Countermeasures (acoustic, chaff, flares) are expended as a result of training exercises, with the exception of towed acoustic countermeasures. • Targets: Some targets are designed to be expended; other targets, such as aerial drones and remote-controlled boats, are recovered for re-use. Targets struck with ordnance will result in target fragments. • Ballast/Anchors: Bottom mine shapes and other sea floor devices (e.g., portable underwater tracking range transponders) use ballast to sink to a predetermined depth or to anchor to the bottom. The device then releases the ballast or anchor (generally lead/sand/concrete). While the ballast/anchor is not recovered, the sea floor device floats to the surface for recovery.
2.3 CLASSIFICATION OF NON-IMPULSE AND IMPULSE SOURCES ANALYZED In this application, underwater sound is described as one of two types: impulse and non-impulse. Explosions and other percussive events are sources of impulse sounds. Sonar and other active acoustic systems are categorized as non-impulse sound sources. A description of each type of source class is provided in Tables 2-4 and 2-5. Non-impulse sources are grouped on the frequency, source level when warranted, and the application in which the source would be used. Impulse sources are grouped based on the NEW of the munitions or explosive devices.
2-9 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
2.3.1 SOURCE CLASSES ANALYZED FOR TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES Tables 2-2 and 2-3 show the impulse sources (e.g., explosives) and non-impulse sources (e.g., sonar) associated with military training and testing activities in the Action Area.
Table 2-2: Impulse Training and Testing Source Classes Analyzed
Source Class Representative Munitions Net Explosive Weight (lb.) E1 Medium-caliber projectiles 0.1–0.25 E2 Medium-caliber projectiles 0.26–0.5 E3 Large-caliber projectiles > 0.5–2.5 Improved Extended Echo Ranging E4 > 2.5–5.0 Sonobuoy E5 5-inch projectiles > 5–10 E6 15 lb. shaped charge > 10–20 E8 250 lb. bomb > 60–100 E9 500 lb. bomb > 100–250 E10 1,000 lb. bomb > 250–500 E11 650 lb. mine > 500–650 E12 2,000 lb. bomb > 650–1,000 Note: lb. = pound(s)
2-10 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-3: Non-Impulse Training and Testing Source Classes Analyzed
Source Class Category Source Class Description LF4 Low-frequency sources equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB Low-Frequency (LF): Sources that LF5 Low-frequency sources less than 180 dB produce low-frequency (less than 1 kHz) signals Low-frequency sonar currently in development (e.g., ASW LF6 sonar associated with the LCS) Hull-mounted surface ship sonar (e.g., AN/SQS-53C and MF1 AN/SQS-60) MF2 Hull-mounted surface ship sonar (e.g., AN/SQS-56) MF3 Hull-mounted submarine sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ-10) Helicopter-deployed dipping sonar (e.g., AN/AQS-22 and MF4 AN/AQS-13) MF5 Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., DICASS) Mid-Frequency (MF): Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce MF6 Active underwater sound signal devices (e.g., MK-84) mid-frequency (1–10 kHz) signals MF8 Active sources (greater than 200 dB) not otherwise binned MF9 Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) Active sources (greater than 160 dB, but less than 180 dB) MF10 not otherwise binned Hull-mounted surface ship sonars with an active duty cycle MF11 greater than 80% MF12 High duty cycle – variable depth sonar
High-Frequency (HF) and Very HF1 Hull-mounted submarine sonar (e.g., AN/BQQ-10) High-Frequency (VHF): Mine detection, classification, and neutralization sonar HF4 Tactical and non-tactical sources (e.g., AN/SQS-20) that produce high-frequency (greater than 10 kHz but less than 200 kHz) HF5 Active sources (greater than 200 dB) signals HF6 Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up to 200 dB) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): ASW1 Mid-frequency DWADS Tactical sources such as active sonobuoys and acoustic ASW2 Mid-frequency MAC sonobuoy (e.g., AN/SSQ-125) countermeasures systems used Mid-frequency towed active acoustic countermeasure during the conduct of anti-submarine ASW3 warfare testing activities systems (e.g., AN/SLQ-25) Lightweight torpedo (e.g., MK-46, MK-54, or Anti-Torpedo Torpedoes (TORP): Source classes TORP1 associated with the active acoustic Torpedo) signals produced by torpedoes TORP2 Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK-48)
Acoustic Modems (M): Systems used to transmit data acoustically M3 Mid-frequency acoustic modems (greater than 190 dB) through water
Swimmer Detection Sonar (SD): High-frequency sources with short pulse lengths, used for Systems used to detect divers and SD1 the detection of swimmers and other objects for the submerged swimmers purpose of port security.
Notes: dB = decibels, DICASS = Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy System, DWADS = Deep Water Active Distributed System, kHz = kilohertz, LCS = Littoral Combat Ship, MAC = Multi-static Active Coherent
2-11 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
2.3.2 SUMMARY OF NON-IMPULSE AND IMPULSE SOURCES Table 2-4 provides a quantitative annual summary of training and testing activities by non-impulse source class analyzed in this EFHA.
Table 2-4: Annual Use of Non-Impulse Sources During Training and Testing Activities within the Action Area
Source Class Category Source Class Annual Use Metric
Low-Frequency (LF) Sources that produce signals LF4 123 # of hours less than 1 kilohertz (kHz) LF5 11 # of hours LF6 40 # of hours Mid-Frequency (MF) Tactical and non-tactical MF1 1,872 # of hours sources that produce signals from 1 to 10 kHz MF2 625 # of hours MF3 192 # of hours MF4 214 # of hours MF5 2,588 # of items MF6 33 # of items MF8 123 # of hours MF9 47 # of hours MF10 231 # of hours MF11 324 # of hours MF12 656 # of hours High-Frequency (HF) and Very High-Frequency HF1 113 # of hours Tactical and non-tactical sources that produce (VHF) HF4 1,060 # of hours signals greater than 10 kHz but less than 200 kHz HF5 336 # of hours HF6 1,173 # of hours Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Tactical sources ASW1 144 # of hours used during anti-submarine warfare training and ASW2 660 # of items testing activities ASW3 3,935 # of hours ASW4 32 # of items Torpedoes (TORP) Source classes associated with TORP1 115 # of items active acoustic signals produced by torpedoes TORP2 62 # of items Acoustic Modems (M) Transmit data acoustically M3 112 # of hours through the water Swimmer Detection Sonar (SD) Used to detect SD1 2,341 # of hours divers and submerged swimmers
Table 2-5 provides a quantitative annual summary of training and testing impulse source classes analyzed in this EFHA.
2-12 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-5: Annual Number of Impulse Source Detonations During Training and Testing Activities within the Action Area
Explosive Annual In-Water Net Explosive Weight Class Detonations
E1 (0.1–0.25 lb.) 10,140 E2 (0.26–0.5 lb.) 106 E3 (> 0.5–2.5 lb.) 933 E4 (> 2.5–5 lb.) 420 E5 (> 5–10 lb.) 684 E6 (> 10–20 lb.) 76 E8 (> 60–100 lb.) 16 E9 (> 100–250 lb.) 4 E10 (> 250–500 lb.) 12 E11 (> 500–650 lb.) 6 E12 (> 650–2,000 lb.) 184 Note: lb. = pound(s)
2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA The Action Area for the EFHA is the MITT Study Area excluding the land-based training areas. The Action Area is composed of established at-sea ranges that encompass waters surrounding Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), operating areas (OPAREAs), and special use airspace in the region of the Mariana Islands that includes the existing Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC) (497,469 square nautical miles [nm2]), additional areas on the high seas (487,132 nm2), and a transit corridor between the MIRC and the Hawaii Range Complex (HRC).3 The transit corridor is outside the geographic boundaries of the MIRC and is a direct route across the high seas for Navy assets in transit between the MIRC and the HRC (Figure 2-1).
The at-sea components of the MIRC include nearshore and offshore training and testing areas, ocean surface and subsurface areas, and special use airspace (Figure 2-2). These areas extend from the waters south of Guam to north of Pagan (CNMI), and from the Pacific Ocean east of the Mariana Islands to the Philippine Sea to the west.
The Action Area also includes pierside locations in the Apra Harbor Naval Complex where surface ship and submarine sonar maintenance testing occurs. For purposes of this EFHA, pierside locations include channels and routes to and from the Navy port in the Apra Harbor Naval Complex, and associated wharves and facilities within the Navy port and shipyard. The Action Area also includes nearshore training and testing areas as depicted in Figures 2-3 and 2-4 and described in Table 2-6.
3 Vessel transit corridors are the routes typically used by Navy assets to traverse from one area to another. The route depicted in Figure 2-1 is a direct route between the MIRC and the HRC, making it a quick and fuel-efficient transit. The depicted transit corridor is notional and may not represent actual routes used. Actual routes navigated are based on a number of factors including, but not limited to, weather and training requirements; however, the corridor represents the environment potentially impacted by the Proposed Action.
2-13 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 2-1: The At-Sea Portion of the Mariana Islands Training and Testing Study Area Comprises the Action Area
2-14 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 2-2: Mariana Islands Range Complex Airspace
2-15 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 2-3: Nearshore Training and Testing Areas
2-16 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-6: Nearshore Training and Testing Areas
Nearshore Training Description and Testing Areas Pacific Ocean off Orote Point, Apra Harbor, Used for Small Arms Training. Down range Island of Guam, Mariana Surface Danger Zone extends out over the Islands; Small Arms nearshore waters of Guam off Orote Point. Firing Range Used for small arms training. Down range Surface Danger Zone extends out over the nearshore Finegayan Small Arms waters of Guam off Haputo Point and overlays Range part of the “Small Arms Safety Drop Zone” shown on NOAA Chart 81048, Guam. Pati Point Combat Arms Used for small arms training. Down range Surface Training Maintenance Danger Zone extends out over the nearshore Small Arms Range waters of Guam off Pati Point. An area used by surface vessel crews to conduct small arms training. This firing area is over water west of Guam, beyond 3 nm of Guam and within Small Arms Firing Area territorial waters, and within a Navy “Firing Danger Area” charted on NOAA Chart 81048, Guam. Used by divers training to conduct underwater detonations (UNDETs). The Exclusion Zone has a Agat Bay Mine minimum 640-meter (m) radius and is located Neutralization Site beyond 3 nm of Guam and within territorial waters. Used by divers training to conduct UNDETs. The Piti Point Mine Exclusion Zone has a minimum 640 m radius and Neutralization Site is located within 3 nm of Guam. Used by divers training to conduct UNDETs. The Exclusion Zone has a minimum 640 m radius over Apra Harbor UNDET water, and is located within Apra Harbor. The Site Glass Breakwater forms the northern edge of the Exclusion Zone. Land site used by the Air Force to dispose of Pati Point Explosive ordnance. The Exclusion Zone extends partially Ordnance Disposal out over the nearshore waters of Guam off Pati Range Point. Notes: nm = nautical miles, NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
2-17 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
2.5 OVERVIEW OF THE STRESSORS ANALYZED FOR EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS For the purposes of this EFHA, the training and testing activities that encompass the Action were deconstructed to derive potential stressors that may affect essential fish habitat. The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and location within the Action Area. The stressors potentially affecting essential fish habitat in this analysis are grouped into the following four categories:
• Acoustic • Energy • Physical disturbance and strike • Contaminant
Table 2-7 describes the stressors in greater detail, including factors influencing how each stressor may affect essential fish habitat.
2-18 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-7: Description of Stressors
Stressor Description of Stressor Acoustic Effects on species from acoustic sources are dependent on a number of factors, (sonar and other active including the type of sound received (non-impulse or impulse), the proximity of the acoustic sources, animal to the sound source, and the duration, frequency, and intensity of the sound. underwater explosives, Underwater sound propagation is highly dependent upon environmental weapons firing, launch and characteristics such as bathymetry, bottom type, water depth, temperature, and impact noise, aircraft salinity. The sound received at a particular location will be different than near the noise, and vessel noise) source due to the interaction of many factors, including propagation loss; how the sound is reflected, refracted, or scattered; the potential for reverberation; and interference due to multi-path propagation. Sonar and other active acoustic sources emit sound waves into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and communicate. Most systems operate within specific frequencies (although some harmonic frequencies may be emitted at lower sound pressure levels). Most sonar use is associated with anti-submarine warfare (ASW) activities. Sonar use associated with mine warfare (MIW) would also contribute a notable portion of overall acoustic sound. Explosives used during training and testing activities include explosive ordnance, including bombs, missiles, and naval gun shells; torpedoes; demolition charges; and explosive sonobuoys. Depending on the activity, detonations would occur in the air, near the water’s surface, or underwater (some torpedoes and sonobuoys). Demolition charges could occur near the surface, in the water column, or on the seafloor. Most detonations would occur in waters greater than 200 ft. (61 m) in depth, and greater than 3 nm from shore, although MIW, demolition, and some testing detonations could occur in shallow water closer to shore. Detonations associated with ASW would typically occur in waters greater than 600 ft. (182.9 m) depth. Noise associated with weapons firing and the impact of non-explosive practice munitions (NEPM) could happen at any location within the Action Area but generally would occur at locations greater than 12 nm from shore for safety reasons. These training and testing events would occur in areas designated for anti-surface warfare and similar activities. The firing of a weapon may have several components of associated noise. Firing of guns could include sound generated by firing the gun (muzzle blast), vibration from the blast propagating through a ship’s hull, and sonic booms generated by the projectile flying through the air. Missiles and targets would also produce noise during launch. In addition, the impact of NEPM at the water surface can introduce noise into the water. Fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft are used for a variety of training and testing activities throughout the Action Area, contributing both airborne and underwater sound to the ocean environment. Aircraft used in training and testing generally have reciprocating, turboprop, or jet engines. Motors, propellers, and rotors produce the most noise, with some noise contributed by aerodynamic turbulence. Aircraft sounds have more energy at lower frequencies. Takeoffs and landings occur at established airfields as well as on vessels at sea throughout the Action Area. Most aircraft noise would be produced around air fields in the range complex. Military activities involving aircraft generally are dispersed over large expanses of open ocean but can be highly concentrated in time and location. Vessels (including ships, small craft, and submarines) would produce low-frequency, broadband underwater sound. Overall, naval traffic is often a minor component of total vessel traffic (Mintz and Filadelfo 2011; Mintz and Parker 2006). Commercial vessel traffic, which included cargo vessels, bulk carriers, passenger vessels, and oil tankers (all over 65 ft. [20 m] in length), was heaviest near and between the major shipping ports.
2-19 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-7: Description of Stressors (continued)
Stressor Description of Stressor Energy Electromagnetic devices are used in towed or unmanned MIW systems that mimic the (electromagnetic devices) electromagnetic signature of a vessel passing through the water. None of the devices include any type of electromagnetic “pulse.” The devices work by emitting an electromagnetic field and mechanically generated underwater sound to simulate the presence of a ship. The sound and electromagnetic signature cause nearby mines to detonate. The static magnetic field generated by the electromagnetic devices is of relatively minute strength. Typically, the maximum magnetic field generated would be approximately 23 gauss (G). By comparison, magnetic field generated by a refrigerator magnet is between 150 and 200 G. The strength of an electromagnetic field decreases quickly with distance from the device. The magnetic field generated at a distance of 4 m from the source is comparable to the earth’s magnetic field, which is approximately 0.5 G. Physical disturbance and Physical disturbances may occur in association with vessel movements, the use of in- strike water devices, and materials expended from vessels and aircraft. (vessels, in water devices, Vessels used as part of the Action include ships (e.g., aircraft carriers, surface military expended combatants), support craft, small boats, and submarines, ranging in size from 5 to materials) over 300 m. Large Navy ships generally operate at speeds in the range of 10–15 knots, and submarines generally operate at speeds in the range of 8–13 knots. Small craft (for purposes of this discussion, less than 40 ft. [12 m] in length), which are all support craft, have variable speeds. Locations of vessel use in the Action Area varies with the type of activity taking place, but greater activity would be expected near ports than in other areas of the Action Area. In-water devices as discussed in this analysis are unmanned vehicles, such as remotely operated vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles and unmanned undersea vehicles, and towed devices. These devices are self-propelled and unmanned or towed through the water from a variety of platforms, including helicopters and surface ships. In-water devices are generally smaller than most participating vessels, ranging from several inches to about 15 m. These devices can operate anywhere from the water surface to the benthic zone. Military expended materials include: (1) all sizes of NEPM; (2) fragments from explosive munitions; and (3) expended materials other than munitions, such as sonobuoys, ship hulks, and expendable targets. Activities using NEPM (e.g., small-, medium-, and large-caliber gun ammunitions, missiles, rockets, bombs, torpedoes, and neutralizers), explosive munitions (generating munitions fragments), and materials other than munitions (e.g., flares, chaff, sonobuoys, decelerators/parachutes, aircraft stores and ballast, and targets) have the potential to contribute to the physical disturbance and strike stressor.
2-20 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-7: Description of Stressors (continued)
Stressor Description of Stressor Contaminant Contaminant stressors associated with some training and testing activities could pose (explosives, explosion indirect impacts to EFH through habitat degradation or alteration or an effect on prey byproducts, metals, and availability. Contaminant stressors include (1) explosives, (2) explosion byproducts chemicals) and unexploded ordnance, (3) metals, and (4) chemicals Indirect impacts of explosives and unexploded ordnance to marine species via degradation of sediment or water quality is possible in the immediate vicinity of the ordnance. Explosion byproducts are not toxic to marine organisms at realistic exposure levels (Rosen and Lotufo 2010). Relatively low solubility of most explosives and their degradation products means that concentrations of these contaminants in the marine environment are relatively low and readily diluted. Metals are introduced into seawater and sediments as a result of training and testing activities involving ship hulks, targets, ordnance, munitions, and other military expended materials. Several training and testing activities introduce potentially harmful chemicals into the marine environment; principally, flares and propellants for rockets, missiles, and torpedoes. Properly functioning flares missiles, rockets, and torpedoes combust most of their propellants, leaving benign or readily diluted soluble combustion byproducts (e.g., hydrogen cyanide). Operational failures allow propellants and their degradation products to be released into the marine environment. Notes: cm = centimeters, ft. = feet, m = meters, nm = nautical miles
2-21 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
2-22 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-8: Training Activities Occurring in the Action Area
Proposed Action
Range Activity No. of activities Ordnance Location (per year) (Number per year)
Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) Air Combat Maneuver (ACM) 4,800 None Study Area > 12 nm from land: SUA Air Defense Exercise (ADEX) 100 None Study Area > 12 nm from land: SUA Air Intercept Control (AIC) 4,800 None Study Area > 12 nm from land: SUA
Gunnery Exercise (Air-to-Air) – Medium- caliber 36 9,000 rounds Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land (GUNEX [A-A]) Medium-caliber
Missile Exercise (Air-to-Air) (MISSILEX [A-A]) 18 36 explosive missiles Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land
Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Air) – Large- caliber 5 40 rounds Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land (GUNEX [S-A]) – Large-caliber
Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Air) – Medium- caliber 12 24,000 rounds Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land (GUNEX [S-A]) – Medium-caliber
Missile Exercise (Surface-to-Air) (MISSILEX [S-A]) 15 15 explosive missiles Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land
2-23 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-8: Training Activities Occurring in the Action Area (continued)
Proposed Action
Range Activity No. of activities Ordnance Location (per year) (Number per year) Strike Warfare (STW) Combat Search and Rescue 80 None MIRC; Rota Airport
Amphibious Warfare (AMW) Amphibious Rehearsal, No Landing – Marine 12 None Study Area and Nearshore Air Ground Task Force
Amphibious Assault 6 Blanks; Simunitions MIRC; Tinian; Guam
Amphibious Raid 6 Blanks; Simunitions MIRC; Tinian; Guam; Rota
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) Gunnery Exercise (Air-to-Surface) – Small- 242 48,040 rounds Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land caliber (GUNEX [A-S]) – Small-caliber Gunnery Exercise (Air-to-Surface) – Medium- 36,650 (7,150 Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land; 295 caliber (GUNEX [A-S]) – Medium-caliber explosive) Transit Corridor Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) – Rocket 114 rockets (114 3 Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land (MISSILEX [A-S] – Rocket) explosive) Missile Exercise (Air-to-Surface) (MISSILEX 20 20 explosive missiles Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land [A-S])
Laser Targeting (at sea) 600 None Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land
Bombing Exercise (Air-to-Surface) 368 NEPM 184 37 Study Area > 50 nm from land (BOMBEX [A-S]) explosive
Torpedo Exercise (Submarine-to-Surface) 5 10 EXTORP Study Area > 3 nm from land
Missile Exercise (Surface-to-Surface) 12 12 Missiles explosive Study Area > 50 nm from land (MISSILEX [S-S])
2-24 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-8: Training Activities Occurring in the Action Area (continued)
Proposed Action Range Activity No. of activities Ordnance Location (per year) (Number per year) Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW) (continued)
Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Surface) Ship 5,698 rounds Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land; 140 – Large-caliber (GUNEX [S-S] – Ship) Large- (500 explosive) Transit Corridor caliber Gunnery Exercise (Surface-to-Surface) Ship 21,900 rounds Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land; 100 – Small- and Medium-caliber (GUNEX [S-S] – (900 explosive) Transit Corridor Ship) Small- and Medium-caliber 28 explosive Bombs 42 explosive Missiles Sinking Exercise (SINKEX) 800 explosive Large- Study Area > 50 nm from land and > 1,000 2 caliber rounds fathoms depth Representative ordnance. Actual ordnance 2 MK-48 explosive used will vary (typically less than shown). 4 explosive Demolitions
2,100 Study Area SUA > 12 nm from land; Medium-caliber 10 Gunnery Exercise (100 explosive) Transit Corridor (Surface-to-Surface) Boat – Small and Medium-caliber (GUNEX [S-S] – Boat Study Area > 3 nm from land; Transit Small-caliber 40 36,000 rounds Corridor
Maritime Security Operations 200 G911 anti- 40 Study Area; MIRC (MSO) swimmer grenade
2-25 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-8: Training Activities Occurring in the Action Area (continued)
Proposed Action Range Activity No. of activities Ordnance Location (per year) (Number per year)
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Tracking Exercise –Helicopter (TRACKEX – None/ Study Area > 3 nm from land; Transit Helo) 62 REXTORP Corridor
Torpedo Exercise – Helicopter (TORPEX – Helo) 4 4 EXTORP Study Area > 3 nm from land
Tracking Exercise – Maritime Patrol Advanced Extended Echo Ranging 11 None Study Area > 3 nm from land Sonobuoys
Tracking Exercise – Maritime Patrol Aircraft None/ (TRACKEX – Maritime Patrol Aircraft) 34 Study Area > 3 nm from land REXTORP
Torpedo Exercise – Maritime Patrol Aircraft (TORPEX – Maritime Patrol Aircraft) 4 4 EXTORP Study Area > 3 nm from land
Tracking Exercise –Surface CG/DDG-92 None/ (TRACKEX – Surface) FFG-30 Study Area > 3 nm from land REXTORP LCS-10
Torpedo Exercise – Surface (TORPEX – Surface) 3 3 EXTORP Study Area > 3 nm from land
2-26 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-8: Training Activities Occurring in the Action Area (continued)
Proposed Action Range Activity No. of activities Ordnance Location (per year) (Number per year) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) (continued) Tracking Exercise – Submarine Study Area > 3 nm from land; Transit (TRACKEX – Sub) 12 None Corridor
Torpedo Exercise – Submarine (TORPEX – Sub) 10 40 MK-48 EXTORP Study Area > 3 nm from land
Major Training Events
Joint Expeditionary Exercise 1 Note 1 Study Area; MIRC
Joint Multi-Strike Group Exercise 1 Note 1 Study Area; MIRC
Marine Air Ground Task Force Exercise Study Area to nearshore; MIRC; Tinian; 4 Note 1 (Amphibious) – Battalion Guam; Rota; Saipan; FDM
Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Study Area to nearshore; MIRC; Tinian; 2 Note 1 Force Exercise Guam; Rota; Saipan
Electronic Warfare (EW) Electronic Warfare Operations (EW Ops) 480 None Study Area
2-27 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-8: Training Activities Occurring in the Action Area (continued)
Proposed Action Range Activity No. of activities Ordnance Location (per year) (Number per year) Electronic Warfare (EW) (continued) Counter Targeting Flare Exercise (FLAREX) – Aircraft 3,200 25,600 cartridges Study Area > 12 nm from land
Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise (CHAFFEX) – Ship 40 240 cartridges Study Area > 12 nm from land
Counter Targeting Chaff Exercise (CHAFFEX) –Aircraft 3,200 25,600 cartridges Study Area > 12 nm from land
Mine Warfare (MIW)
Mariana littorals; MIRC; Inner and Outer Civilian Port Defense 1 Note 1 Apra Harbor
Mine Laying 4 480 mine shapes MIRC Warning Areas
MIRC mine neutralization sites, 20 lb. NEW Mine Neutralization – Explosive Ordnance 20 20 explosive charges maximum Disposal (EOD) (Piti site is 10 lb. NEW maximum)
Limpet Mine Neutralization System/Shock Mariana littorals; Inner and Outer Apra 40 40 charges Wave Generator Harbor
Submarine Mine Exercise 16 n/a Study Area; nearshore
2-28 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-8: Training Activities Occurring in the Action Area (continued)
Proposed Action Range Activity No. of activities Ordnance Location (per year) (Number per year) Mine Warfare (MIW) (continued)
Airborne Mine Countermeasure – Mine 4 n/a Study Area; nearshore Detection
Mine Countermeasure Exercise – Towed 4 n/a Study Area Sonar (AQS-20, LCS)
Mine Countermeasure Exercise – Surface 4 n/a Study Area (SMCMEX) Sonar (SQQ-32, MCM)
Mine Neutralization – Remotely Operated 4 explosive 4 Study Area Vehicle Sonar (ASQ-235 [AQS-20], SLQ-48) neutralizers
Mine Countermeasure – Towed Mine 4 n/a Study Area Detection
Naval Special Warfare (NSW)
Personnel Insertion/ 240 None MIRC; Guam; Tinian; Rota Extraction
MIRC underwater demolition sites, 20 lb. Underwater Demolition Qualification/ 30 30 explosive charges NEW maximum charge (except Piti 10 lb. Certification NEW maximum)
2-29 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-8: Training Activities Occurring in the Action Area (continued)
Proposed Action Range Activity No. of activities Ordnance Location (per year) (Number per year) Other
Study Area > 3 nm from land; Inner Apra Surface Ship Sonar Maintenance 42 None Harbor; Transit Corridor
Study Area > 3 nm from land; Inner Apra Submarine Sonar Maintenance 48 None Harbor; Transit Corridor
2,100 small-caliber 6 Study Area > 3 nm from land rounds Small Boat Attack
12 4,000 blank rounds Study Area
Submarine Navigation 8 None Apra Harbor and Mariana littorals
Search and Rescue At Sea 40 None Study Area
Precision Anchoring 18 None Apra Harbor; Mariana Islands anchorages
Notes: (1) Exercise is composed of various activities accounted for elsewhere within Table 2-8 (2) Discussed as an embedded training activity to CHAFFEX/FLAREX in MIRC EIS/OEIS Appendix D (Air Quality Calculations and Record of Non- Applicability). (3) CHAFF = Chaff Exercise, EIS = Environmental Impact Statement, EOD = Explosive Ordnance Disposal, EXTORP = Exercise Torpedo, FDM = Farallon de Medinilla, FLAREX = Flare Exercise, lb. = pounds, LCS = Littoral Combat Ship, MIRC = Mariana Islands Range Complex, n/a = Not Applicable, NEPM = Non- explosive Practice Munitions, NEW = Net Explosive Weight, nm = nautical miles, OEIS = Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, REXTORP = Recoverable Exercise Torpedo, SUA = Special Use Airspace
2-30 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-9: Proposed Naval Air Systems Command Testing Activities in the Action Area
Action Range Activity No. of activities Ordnance Location (per year) (Number per year) Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)
Air-to-Surface Missile Test 8 harpoon missiles 8 Action Area > 50 nm from land (4 explosive)
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Test – 240 IEER1 188 Action Area > 3 nm from land Maritime Patrol Aircraft (Sonobuoys) 553 SUS
Anti-Submarine Warfare Torpedo Test 40 40 EXTORP Action Area > 3 nm from land
Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) 10 None Action Area Testing – MQ-4C Triton
Electronic Warfare (EW)
Flare Test 10 None Action Area > 3 nm from land
1 Use of Improved Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) sonobuoys will decrease over time while being replaced by use of Multi-static Active Coherent (MAC) sonobuoys. MAC buoys employ an electronic acoustic source in place of the explosive source used on the IEER buoys. Notes: EIS = Environmental Impact Statement, EXTORP = Exercise Torpedo, IEER = Improved Extended Echo Ranging, MAC = Multi-static Active Coherent, nm = nautical miles, OEIS = Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, SUS = Signal Underwater Sound
2-31 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-10: Proposed Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities in the Action Area
Action Range Activity No. of activities Ordnance Location (per year) (Number per year) Life Cycle Activities
Ship Signature Testing 17 None Action Area
Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)/Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Testing
50 2,000 projectiles
Kinetic Energy Weapon Testing MIRC > 12 nm from land
1 event total 5,000 projectiles
20 torpedoes (8 Torpedo Testing 2 MIRC > 3 nm from land explosive)
Countermeasure Testing 2 56 torpedoes Action Area
At-Sea Sonar Testing 20 None Action Area
2-32 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-10: Proposed Naval Sea Systems Command Testing Activities in the Action Area (continued)
Action Range Activity No. of activities Ordnance Location (per year) (Number per year) New Ship Construction
ASW Mission Package Testing 33 None Action Area
MCM Mission Package Testing 48 neutralizers (24 32 Action Area explosive)
ASUW Mission Gun Testing – 4 Package Testing Small-caliber 2,000 rounds
Gun Testing – 4 4,080 rounds (2,040 Medium-caliber explosive) (30 mm) Action Area; Warning Area > 12 nm from land Gun Testing – 4 5,600 rounds (3,920 Large-caliber in-air explosive) (57 mm)
Missile/ 32 missiles/ 4 Rocket Testing rockets (16 explosive)
Notes: MCM = Mine Countermeasure, MIRC = Mariana Islands Range Complex, mm = millimeters, nm = nautical miles
2-33 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 2-11: Proposed Office of Naval Research Testing Activities in the Action Area
Action Range Activity No. of activities Ordnance Location (per year) (Number per year) Shipboard Protection Systems and Swimmer Defense Testing Pierside Integrated Swimmer Defense 11 None Inner Apra Harbor Office of Naval Research
North Pacific Acoustic Lab Philippine Sea 1 n/a Action Area 2018–19 Experiment (Deep Water)
Note: n/a = Not Applicable
2-34 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
3 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT In 1996, the MSA was reauthorized and amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-267). The reauthorized MSA mandated numerous changes to the existing legislation designed to prevent overfishing, rebuild depleted fish stocks, minimize bycatch, enhance research, improve monitoring, and protect fish habitat. One of the most significant mandates in the MSA that came out of the reauthorization was the EFH provision, which provides the means to conserve fish habitat and promote sustainable fisheries and their stocks.
The EFH mandate requires that the regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs), through federal fishery management plans (FMPs), describe and identify EFH for each federally managed species; minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing; and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitats. Congress defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (16 U.S.C. §1802(10)). The term “fish” is defined in the MSA as “finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animals and plant life other than marine mammals and birds.” The regulations for implementing EFH clarify that “waters” include all aquatic areas and their biological, chemical, and physical properties, while “substrate” includes the associated biological communities that make these areas suitable fish habitats (50 C.F.R. §600.10). Habitats used at any time during a species’ life cycle (i.e., during at least one of its lifestages) must be accounted for when describing and identifying EFH (National Marine Fisheries Service 2002). Authority to implement the MSA is given to the Secretary of Commerce through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
The MSA requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect EFH or when the NMFS independently learns of a federal activity that may adversely affect EFH. The MSA defines an adverse effect as “any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat- wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions” (50 C.F.R. §600.810).
In addition to EFH designations, areas called Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) are also designated by the regional FMCs. Designated HAPCs are discrete subsets of EFH that provide extremely important ecological functions or are especially vulnerable to degradation (50 C.F.R. §600.805-600.815). Regional FMCs may designate a specific habitat area as a HAPC based on one or more of the following reasons (National Marine Fisheries Service 2002):
1. Importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat 2. The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation 3. Whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type 4. Rarity of the habitat type
Categorization of an area as a HAPC does not confer additional protection or restriction to the designated area.
The area encompassed by the Proposed Action (Study Area) extends through the jurisdiction of the WPRFMC. As a result, training and testing activities that occur as part of the Proposed Action may have
3-1 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
the potential to affect EFH and HAPCs designated by this Council (Figure 3-1). Maps and figures of the current designated EFH and HAPC locations in the MITT Study Area are located in this section.
Figure 3-1: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Jurisdiction within the Mariana Islands Training and Testing Study Area
3.1 WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL The WPRFMC has authority over the fisheries based in, and surrounding, the State of Hawaii, the Territory of American Samoa, the Territory of Guam, the CNMI, and the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA) of the Western Pacific Region (Figure 3-2). The PRIA comprise Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Wake Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Midway Atoll. The WPRFMC developed a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) as an FMP, consistent with the MSA and the national standards for fishery conservation and management (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009). Since the 1980s, the Council has managed fisheries throughout the Western Pacific
3-2 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Region through separate species-based FMPs—the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1986a), the Crustaceans FMP (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1981), the Precious Corals FMP (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1979), the Coral Reef Ecosystems (CRE) FMP (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2001), and the Pelagic FMP (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1986b).
Figure 3-2: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Geographic Area
However, the WPRFMC is now moving towards an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management and is restructuring its management framework from species-based FMPs to place-based FEPs. Recognizing that a comprehensive ecosystem approach to fisheries management must be initiated through an incremental, collaborative, and adaptive management process, a multi-step approach is being used to develop and implement the FEPs. To be successful, this will require increased
3-3 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
understanding of a range of issues including biological and trophic relationships, ecosystem indicators and models, and the ecological effects of non-fishing activities on the marine environment.
The Mariana Archipelago FEP establishes the framework under which the WPRFMC will manage fishery resources, and begin the integration and implementation of ecosystem approaches to management in the Mariana Archipelago. This FEP does not establish any new fishery management regulations at this time, but rather consolidates existing fishery regulations for demersal species. Specifically, this FEP identifies as Management Unit Species (MUS) those species known to be present in waters around Guam and the CNMI and incorporates all of the management provisions of the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish FMP, the Crustaceans FMP, the Precious Corals FMP, and the Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan (CRE FMP) that are applicable to the area. Although pelagic fishery resources play an important role in the biological as well as the socioeconomic environment of these islands, they will be managed separately through the Pacific Pelagic FEP.
The EFH designations were developed by the WPRFMC and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. EFH designations for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish, Crustaceans, and Precious Corals were partially approved by the Secretary on 3 February 1999, under Amendment 6 (64 Federal Register [F.R.] 19067-02). Disapproved sections include the bycatch provisions of Amendment 6 to the FMP for Bottomfish and Seamount groundfish, as well as those for Amendment 8 to the Pelagic FMP. Also disapproved were the criteria for identifying when overfishing would occur in the bottomfish, pelagics, and crustacean fisheries.
3.1.1 BOTTOMFISH MANAGEMENT UNIT 3.1.1.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat Unlike the U.S. mainland, with its continental shelf ecosystems, Pacific islands are primarily volcanic peaks with steep drop-offs and limited shelf ecosystems. The Bottomfish Management Unit Species (BMUS) under the WPFRMC’s jurisdiction are found concentrated on the steep slopes of deepwater banks. The 100-fathom isobath is commonly used as an index of bottomfish habitat. Adult bottomfish are usually found in habitats characterized by a hard substrate of high structural complexity. The total extent and geographic distribution of the preferred habitat of bottomfish is not well known. Bottomfish populations are not evenly distributed within their natural habitat; instead, they are found dispersed in a non-random, patchy fashion (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009).
There is regional variation in species composition, as well as a relative abundance of the MUS of the deepwater bottomfish complex in the Western Pacific Region (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009). In American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, the bottomfish fishery can be divided into two distinct fisheries: a shallow- and a deep-water bottomfish fishery, based on species and depth. The shallow-water (0–100 meters [m]) bottomfish complex comprises groupers, snappers, and jacks in the genera Lethrinus, Lutjanus, Epinephelus, Aprion, Caranx, Variola, and Cephalopholis (Table 3-1). The deep-water (100–400 m) bottomfish complex comprises primarily snappers and groupers in the genera Pristipomoides, Etelis, Aphareus, Epinephelus, and Cephalopholis (Table 3-1).
3-4 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 3-1: Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Designations for the Mariana Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan Management Unit
Management Unit Species Complex EFH HAPC Eggs and larvae: the water column Shallow-water species (0–50 fm): uku (Aprion extending from the shoreline to the outer virescens), thicklip trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex), limit of the EEZ down to a depth of 400 m All slopes and escarpments giant trevally (Caranx ignoblis), black trevally between 40 and 280 m (Caranx lugubris), amberjack (Seriola dumerili), Juvenile/adults: the water column and taape (Lutjanus kasmira) all bottom habitat extending from the shoreline to a depth of 400 m
Deep-water species (50–200 fm): ehu (Etelis Eggs and larvae: the water column carbunculus), onaga (Etelis coruscans), opakapaka extending from the shoreline to the outer (Pristipomoides filamentosus), yellowtail kalekale limit of the EEZ down to a depth of 400 m All slopes and escarpments Bottomfish and (P. auricilla), kalekale (P. sieboldii), gindai (P. between 40 and 280 m Seamount Juvenile/adults: the water column and zonatus), hapuupuu (Epinephelus quernus), lehi Groundfish all bottom habitat extending from the (Aphareus rutilans) shoreline to a depth of 400 m Eggs and larvae: the (epipelagic zone) water column down to a depth of 200 m of all EEZ waters bounded by latitude 29°–35° N and longitude 171° E–179° W, Seamount groundfish species (50–200 fm): which is not within the Study Area armorhead (Pseudopentaceros richardsoni), boundaries. No HAPC designated for ratfish/butterfish (Hyperoglyphe japonica), alfonsino seamount groundfish (Beryx splendens) Juvenile/adults: all EEZ waters and bottom habitat bounded by latitude 29°– 35° N and longitude 171° E–179° W between 80 and 600 m, which is not within the Study Area boundaries.
3-5 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 3-1: Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Designations for the Mariana Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan Management Unit (continued)
Management Unit Species Complex EFH HAPC Spiny and slipper lobster: Eggs and larvae: the water column from the spiny lobster (P. penicillatus, P. spp.), shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ down to a ridgeback slipper lobster (Scyllarides haanii), depth of 150 m No HAPC designated within Chinese slipper lobster (Parribacus antarcticus) the Study Area. Juvenile/adults: all of the bottom habitat from the Kona crab: shoreline to a depth of 100 m Crustaceans Kona crab (Ranina ranina) Eggs and larvae: the water column and associated outer reef slopes between 1550 and No HAPC designated for Deepwater shrimp (Heterocarpus spp.) 700 m deepwater shrimp. Juvenile/adults: the outer reef slopes at depths between 300 and 700 m
Little information is available on the CNMI precious coral fishery. The steep topography around the islands limits the available Precious habitat for precious coral. Since World War II no known precious coral harvests have occurred within the EEZ waters around CNMI. Corals Therefore, there is no known precious coral fishery in the Mariana Archipelago.
Includes all no-take Marine Protected Areas identified All Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa in the CRE-FMP, all Pacific EFH for the Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS includes Coral Reef remote islands, as well as (CHCRT) the water column and all benthic substrate to a Ecosystems numerous existing Marine depth of 100 m from the shoreline to the outer (CRE) Protected Areas, research All Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa limit of the EEZ (PHCRT) sites, and coral reef habitats throughout the western Pacific Temperate species Eggs and larvae: the water column extending from the shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ Tropical species down to a depth of 200 m Water column down to Pelagic 1,000 m that lies above Sharks Juvenile/adults: the water column extending seamounts and banks from the shoreline to a depth of 1,000 m Squid Notes: HAPC= Habitat Area of Particular Concern, CRE = Coral Reef Ecosystem, FMP= Fishery Management Plan, MITT= Mariana Islands Training and Testing, EEZ= Exclusive Economic Zone, fm = fathoms, ft. = feet, CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, m = meters, N = North, W = West, E = East Source: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009
3-6 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
To reduce the complexity and the number of EFH designations required for individual species and life stages, the WPFRMC has designated EFH for bottomfish assemblages pursuant to Section 600.805(b) of 62 F.R. 66551, which is based on ecological relationships between species and their preferred habitats. The species complex designations include deep-slope bottomfish (shallow water and deep water) and seamount groundfish complexes. The designation of these complexes is based on the ecological relationships among species and their preferred habitat. These species complexes are grouped by the known depth distributions of individual BMUS throughout the Western Pacific Region (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1986a).
Eggs and Larval Lifestages The eggs and larvae of all BMUS are pelagic, floating at the surface until hatching and subject thereafter to advection by the prevailing ocean currents. As snapper and grouper larvae are rarely collected in plankton surveys, it is extremely difficult to study their distribution. Because of the existing scientific uncertainty about the distribution of the eggs and larvae of bottomfish, the WPFRMC designated the water column extending from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and to a depth of 400 m as EFH for shallow-water and deep-water bottomfish eggs and larvae throughout the Western Pacific Region (see Table 3-1).
Juvenile and Adult Lifestages Given the uncertainty concerning the life histories and habitat requirements of many BMUS, the WPFRMC designated EFH for adult and juvenile shallow-water and deep-water bottomfish as the water column and bottom habitat extending from the shoreline to a depth of 400 m encompassing the steep drop-offs and high-relief habitats that are important for bottomfish throughout the Western Pacific Region (see Table 3-1).
Limited information is available for various larval, juvenile, and adult bottomfish genera of the shallow- water and deep-water complexes. Within the shallow-water complex, snappers form large aggregations and groupers/jacks occur in pairs within large aggregations near areas of prominent relief. Spawning coincides with lunar periodicity corresponding with new/full moon events. Groupers have been shown to undergo small, localized migrations of several kilometers to spawn. Large jacks are highly mobile, wide-ranging predators that inhabit the open waters above the reef or swim in upper levels of the open sea and spawn at temperatures of 18–30 degrees Celsius (°C). Within the deep-water complex, snappers aggregate near areas of bottom relief as individuals or in small groups. Snappers may be batch or serial spawners, spawning multiple times over the course of the spawning season (spring and summer peaking in November and December), exhibit a shorter, more well-defined spawning period (July–September), or have a protracted spawning period (June–December, peaking in August). Some snappers display a crepuscular periodicity (active during twilight hours) and migrate diurnally from areas of high relief during the day at depths of 100–200 m to shallow (30–80 m), flat shelf areas at night. Other snapper species exhibit higher densities on up-current side islands, banks, and atolls (Moffitt 1993).
Seamount Groundfish (All Lifestages) The life histories and distributional patterns of species in the seamount groundfish management unit are poorly understood. Data are lacking on the effects of oceanographic variability on migration and recruitment of individual species. On the basis of the best available data, the WPFRMC designated EFH for the adult life stage of the seamount groundfish complex as all waters and bottom habitat bounded by latitude 29 degrees (°) North (N)–35° N and longitude 171° East (E)–179° West (W), which is not within the Study Area boundaries, and within the depth range of 80–600 m. Essential Fish Habitat for
3-7 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
eggs, larvae, and juveniles is the epipelagic zone (surface to 200 m) of all waters bounded by latitude 29° N–35° N and longitude 171° E–179° W.
3.1.1.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern On the basis of the known distribution and habitat requirements of adult bottomfish, the WPFRMC designated all escarpments/slopes between 40 and 280 m throughout the Western Pacific Region, including the Mariana Archipelago, as bottomfish HAPC (see Table 3-1). The designation is based on the ecological function that these areas provide, the rarity of the habitat, and the susceptibility of these areas to human-induced environmental degradation. In contrast, flat featureless bottom areas are thought to provide low-value fishery habitat. However, the recent discovery of concentrations of juvenile snappers in relatively shallow water and featureless bottom habitat indicates the need for more research to help identify, map, and study nursery habitat for juvenile snapper.
No HAPC has been designated for species in the seamount groundfish management unit.
3.1.1.3 Figures and Maps Figure 3-3 shows the EFH for all eggs and larval lifestage of bottomfish designated on Guam, Tinian, and Farallon de Medinilla (FDM). Figure 3-4 shows the EFH for all juvenile and adult lifestage of bottomfishes designated on FDM. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show the EFH and HAPC designated on Guam and Tinian for all juvenile and adult lifestages of bottomfish.
3-8 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-3: Essential Fish Habitat for All Eggs and Larval Lifestages of Bottomfish Designated on Guam, Tinian, and Farallon de Medinilla
3-9 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-4: Essential Fish Habitat for All Juvenile and Adult Lifestages of Bottomfishes Designated on Farallon de Medinilla
3-10 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-5: Essential Fish Habitat for All Juvenile and Adult Lifestages of Bottomfish and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Designated on Guam
3-11 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-6: Essential Fish Habitat for All Juvenile and Adult Lifestages of Bottomfish and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Designated on Tinian
3-12 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
3.1.2 CRUSTACEANS MANAGEMENT UNIT 3.1.2.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat To reduce the complexity and the number of EFH designations required for individual species and life stages, the WPRFMC has divided EFH for crustaceans into three complexes: spiny and slipper lobster, Kona crab, and deepwater shrimp. The designations are based on the ecological relationships among species and their preferred habitat.
Spiny lobsters are found throughout the Indo-Pacific region. All spiny lobsters in the Western Pacific Region belong to the family Palinuridae. The slipper lobsters belong to the closely related family Scyllaridae. There are 839 species of crustaceans in the Marianas (Paulay et al. 2003). Thirteen species of spiny lobster occur in the tropical and subtropical Pacific between 35° N and 35° South (S) (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009). In the southwestern region of the North Pacific, spiny lobsters are typically found in association with coral reefs. Coral reefs provide shelter as well as a diverse and abundant supply of food. Adult spiny lobsters are typically found on rocky substrate in well- protected areas, in crevices, and under rocks. In CNMI, spiny lobsters have not been found at depths greater than 42 feet (ft.) (13 m). Spiny lobsters inhabit the rocky shelters in the windward surf zones of oceanic reefs and move on to the reef flat at night to forage. Five species of spiny lobsters occur in the Marianas; the Pronghorn spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus) is the most common species (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2001; Paulay et al. 2003). While slipper lobsters are present in Guam and CNMI, the estimated annual biological catches are low; in 2013 it was 80 lb. (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2012).
The Kona crab is found in a number of environments, from sheltered bays and lagoons to surf zones, but prefers sandy habitat in depths of 24–115 m (Smith 1993, Poupin 1996). The Kona crab spawns at least twice during the spawning season; there are insufficient data to define the exact spawning season in the MITT Study Area (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009).
The WPRFMC designated EFH for spiny lobster and Kona crab larvae as the water column from the shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ and to a depth of 150 m throughout the Western Pacific Region. The EFH for juvenile and adult spiny lobster and Kona crab is designated as the bottom habitat from the shoreline to a depth of 100 m throughout the Western Pacific Region.
There are three species of deep-water shrimp known to occur in the Study Area, Heterocarpus ensifer, Heterocarpus laevigatus, and Heterocarpus longirostris. These species occur at varying depths, H. ensifer at 366–550 m, H. laevigatus at 550–915 m, and H. longirostris at depths greater than 915 m (Moffitt and Polovina 1987). The EFH for deepwater shrimp eggs and larvae is designated as the water column and associated outer reef slopes between 550 and 700 m, and the EFH for juveniles and adults is designated as the outer reef slopes at depths between 300 and 700 m (see Table 3-1).
3.1.2.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern No HAPC has been designated for crustaceans in this Management Unit within the Study Area.
3.1.2.3 Figures and Maps Figure 3-7 shows the EFH for all eggs and larval lifestages of crustaceans designated on Guam, Tinian, and FDM. Figures 3-8 to 3-10 show the EFH for all juvenile and adult lifestages of crustaceans designated on Guam, Tinian, and FDM.
3-13 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-7: Essential Fish Habitat for All Eggs and Larval Lifestages of Crustaceans Designated on Guam, Tinian, and Farallon de Medinilla
3-14 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-8: Essential Fish Habitat for All Juvenile and Adult Lifestages of Crustaceans Designated on Guam
3-15 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-9: Essential Fish Habitat for All Juvenile and Adult Lifestages of Crustaceans Designated on Tinian
3-16 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-10: Essential Fish Habitat for All Juvenile and Adult Lifestages of Crustaceans Designated on Farallon de Medinilla
3-17 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
3.1.3 CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT UNIT In designating EFH for CRE MUS, the WPRFMC used an approach similar to one used by both the South Atlantic and the Pacific Fishery Management Councils. This approach links the MUSs to specific habitat “composites” (e.g., sand, live coral, seagrass beds, mangrove, open ocean) for each life history stage, consistent with the water depth of the ecosystem to 100 m and to the limit of the EEZ.
The CRE FMP manages coral reef ecosystems surrounding the following U.S. Pacific Island areas: the State of Hawai’i, the Territories of American Samoa and Guam, the CNMI, and the PRIAs of Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra and Midway Atolls, and Jarvis, Howland, Baker and Wake Islands (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2001). Under this plan, 80 coral reef species are managed (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009).
Except for several of the major coral reef associated species, very little is known about the life histories, habitat utilization patterns, food habits, or spawning behavior of most coral reef associated species. For this reason, the WPRFMC, through the CRE FMP, designated EFH using a two-tiered approach based on the division of MUS into the Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa (CHCRT) and Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa (PHCRT) categories. The categories are also consistent with the use of habitat composites.
3.1.3.1 Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa Complex In the first tier, EFH has been identified for species that are (a) currently being harvested in state and federal waters and for which some fishery information is available and (b) likely to be targeted in the near future based on historical catch data. Appendix B summarizes the habitat types used by CHCRT species.
3.1.3.1.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat To reduce the complexity and the number of EFH identifications required for individual species and life stages, the WPRFMC has designated EFH for species assemblages pursuant to 50 C.F.R. 600.815 (a)(2)(ii)(E). The designation of these assemblages or complexes is based on the ecological relationships among species and their preferred habitat. These species complexes are grouped by the known depth distributions of individual MUS. EFH for the Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS includes the water column and all benthic substrate to a depth of 100 m from the shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ (see Table 3-1).
3.1.3.1.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Because of the already-noted lack of scientific data, the WPRFMC considered HAPC as those locations that are known to support populations of Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS and those that meet the NMFS criteria for HAPC. The WPRFMC considered designating areas that are already protected—for example, wildlife refuges—as HAPC, even though this is not one of the criteria NMFS uses to establish HAPC. The Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS HAPCs for the Marianas identified in Table 3-2 have met at least one of the four criteria (rarity of habitat, ecological function, susceptibility to human impact, likelihood of developmental impacts), or the fifth criterion (i.e., protected areas) identified by the WPRFMC. However, a great deal of life history work needs to be done in order to adequately identify the extent of HAPCs and link them to particular species or life stages.
3.1.3.2 Figures and Maps Figures 3-11 to 3-20 show the EFH for various species and lifestage of the CHCRT and HAPC designated on Guam, Tinian, and FDM.
3-18 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-11: Essential Fish Habitat for Various Lifestages of the Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa-Coral Reef Ecosystem) on Guam, Tinian, and Farallon de Medinilla
3-19 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-12: Essential Fish Habitat for All Juvenile and Adult Lifestages of the Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa-Coral Reef Ecosystem on Guam
3-20 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-13: Essential Fish Habitat for All Juvenile and Adult Lifestages of Flagtails and Mullets (Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa-Coral Reef Ecosystem) on Guam
3-21 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-14: Essential Fish Habitat for All Adult Lifestages of Rudderfishes (Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa- Coral Reef Ecosystem) on Guam
3-22 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-15: Essential Fish Habitat for All Juvenile and Adult Lifestages of the Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa-Coral Reef Ecosystem on Tinian
3-23 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-16: Essential Fish Habitat for All Juvenile and Adult Lifestages of Flagtails and Mullets (Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa-Coral Reef Ecosystem) on Tinian
3-24 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-17: Essential Fish Habitat for All Adult Lifestages of Rudderfishes (Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa- Coral Reef Ecosystem) on Tinian
3-25 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-18: Essential Fish Habitat for All Juvenile and Adult Lifestages of the Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa-Coral Reef Ecosystem on Farallon de Medinilla
3-26 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-19: Essential Fish Habitat for All Juvenile and Adult Lifestages of the Flagtails and Mullets (Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa-Coral Reef Ecosystem) on Farallon de Medinilla
3-27 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-20: Essential Fish Habitat for All Adult Lifestages of Rudderfishes (Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa- Coral Reef Ecosystem) on Farallon de Medinilla
3-28 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
3.1.3.3 Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa Complex 3.1.3.3.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat EFH has also been designated for the second tier, PHCRT. These taxa include thousands of species encompassing almost all coral reef associated fauna and flora. However, there is very little scientific knowledge about the life histories and habitat requirements of the thousands of species that compose these taxa. In fact, a large percentage of these biota have not been described by science. Therefore, the WPRFMC has used the precautionary approach in designating EFH for PHCRT so that enough habitat is protected to sustain managed species. Appendix B summarizes the habitat types used by PHCRT species. The designation of EFH for PHCRT in Guam and the Mariana Islands is the same as the EFH designation for CHCRT (see Table 3-1).
3.1.3.3.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Because of the aforementioned lack of scientific data, the WPRFMC considered locations that are known to support populations of Coral Reef Ecosystem MUS and meet NMFS criteria for HAPC. The designation of HAPCs for PHCRT in Guam and the Mariana Islands is the same as the HAPC designations for CHCRT (Table 3-2). However, a great deal of life history work needs to be done in order to adequately identify the extent of HAPCs and link them to particular species or life stages.
3.1.3.3.3 Figures and Maps Figure 3-21 shows the EFH for all lifestages of the PHCRT and HAPC designated on Guam, Tinian, and FDM.
3-29 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-21: Essential Fish Habitat for All Lifestages of the Potentially Harvested Coral Reef Taxa-Coral Reef Ecosystem and Habit Areas of Particular Concern Designated on Guam, Tinian, and Farallon de Medinilla
3-30 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 3-2: Coral Reef Ecosystem Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Criteria Designations in the Mariana Archipelago
Susceptibility Likelihood of Existing Rarity of Ecological to Human Developmental Protective Habitat Function Impact Impacts Status Guam Cocos Lagoon X X X Orote Point Ecological Reserve X X X X X Area Haputo Point Ecological X X X Reserve Area Ritidian Point X X X Jade Shoals X X X CNMI Saipan (Saipan Lagoon) X (Managaha X X X X Marine Conservation Area) Note: CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Source: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009
3.1.4 PELAGIC MANAGEMENT UNIT 3.1.4.1 Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat The WPRFMC has used the best available scientific information to describe EFH in text and tables that provide information on the biological requirements for each life stage (egg, larvae, juvenile, adult) of all Pelagic Management Unit Species (PMUS). Careful judgment was used in determining the extent of the EFH that should be designated to ensure that sufficient habitat in good condition is available to maintain a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem.
Pelagic fish occur in tropical and temperate waters of the Western Pacific Ocean. Geographical distribution among the pelagic species is governed by seasonal changes in ocean temperature. These species range from as far north as Japan, to as far south as New Zealand. Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga), striped marlin (Tetrapurus audax), and broadbill swordfish (Xiphias gladius) have broader ranges and occur from 50° N to 50° S (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1998).
The pelagic species are typically found in epipelagic to pelagic waters; however, shark species can be found in inshore benthic (bottom habitats), neritic (nearshore) to epipelagic (open ocean shallow zone), and mesopelagic waters (open ocean zone with reduced light penetration). Gradients in temperature, oxygen, or salinity can affect the suitability of a habitat for pelagic fish. Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), yellowfin tuna (T. albacares), and Indo-Pacific blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) prefer warm surface layers, where the water is well mixed and relatively uniform in temperature. Species such as albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), striped marlin (Kaijika audax), and broadbill swordfish (Xiphias gladius) prefer cooler temperate waters associated with higher latitudes and greater depths. Certain species are known to aggregate near the surface at night. However, during the day, broadbill swordfish can be found at depths of 800 m, while bigeye tuna can be found around 275–550 m. Juvenile albacore tuna generally concentrate above 90 m with adults found in deeper waters (90–275 m) (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009).
To reduce the complexity and the number of EFH identifications required for individual species and life stages, the WPRFMC has designated EFH for pelagic species assemblages pursuant to Section 600.805(b)
3-31 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
of 62 F.R. 66551. The species complex designations for the PMUS are temperate species, tropical species, sharks, and squid (Table 3-3). The designation of these complexes is based on the ecological relationships among species and their preferred habitat. The marketable species complex has been subdivided into tropical and temperate assemblages. The temperate species complex includes those PMUS that are found in greater abundance in higher latitudes such as swordfish and bigeye, bluefin, and albacore tuna.
Migration and life history patterns of most pelagic fish are poorly understood in the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, very little is known about the distribution and habitat requirements of the juvenile life stages of tuna and billfish prior to recruitment into fisheries. Seasonal movements of cooler-water tunas such as the northern bluefin and albacore are more predictable and better defined than billfish migrations. Tuna and related species tend to move toward the poles during the warmer months and return to the equator during cooler months. Most pelagic species make daily vertical migrations, inhabiting surface waters at night and deeper waters during the day. Spawning for pelagic species generally occurs in tropical waters but may include temperate waters during warmer months. Very little is known about the life history stages of species that are not targeted by fisheries in the Pacific such as escolars or sname makerals (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009).
Because of the uncertainty about the life histories and habitat utilization patterns of many PMUS, the WPRFMC has taken a precautionary approach by adopting a 1,000 m depth as the lower bound of EFH for PMUS. Although many of the PMUS are epipelagic, some species are known to be present in the mesopelagic zone (200–1,000 m). Bigeye tuna are abundant at depths in excess of 400 m and swordfish have been tracked to depths of 800 m. Vertically migrating mesopelagic fishes and squids associated with the deep scattering layer are important prey for PMUS and are most abundant above 1,000 m. The EFH designation is also based on anecdotal reports from fishermen that PMUS aggregate over high relief topographical features at water depths of 2,000 m or more. These reports are supported by research that indicates seabed features with high relief, such as seamounts, exert a strong influence over the water column adjacent to and above the seamount. Studies have shown that strong mixing often occurs at the convergence of adjacent currents or water masses, which can take place at oceanic boundaries along continental slopes, above seamounts and mid-ocean ridges, where other oceanic fronts occur (e.g., at gyres), and in the mixed layer (Lalli and Parsons 1997; Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009). Mixing results in areas of high primary productivity, which in turn become foraging ‘hotspots’ for pelagic species, including fishes in the Pelagic Management Unit.
3-32 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 3-3: Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Area of Particular Concern designated by Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council
Species Complex EFH HAPC Temperate species Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) Mackerel (Scomber spp.) Pomfret (family Bramidae) Striped marlin (Tetrapurus audax) Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Tropical species Black marlin (Makaira indica) Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) Dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor) Frigate and bullet tunas (Auxis thazard, A. rochei) Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis) Mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus, C. equiselas) Eggs and larvae: the Ono (Acanthocybium solandri) (epipelagic zone) water column down to a depth of 200 Opah (Lampris spp.) The water column from the m from the shoreline to the surface down to a depth of Sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) outer limit of the EEZ 1,000 m above all seamounts Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) and banks with summits Slender tuna (Allothunnus fallai) Juvenile/adults: the water shallower than 2,000 m within the EEZ Spearfish (Tetrapturus spp.) column down to a depth of 1,000 m from the shoreline to Yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) the outer limit of the EEZ Sharks Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus) Blue shark (Prionace glauca) Thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) Longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus) Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) Pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus) Salmon shark (Lamna ditropis) Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) Squid Diamondback squid (Thysanoteuthis rhombus) Neon flying squid (Ommastrephes bartamii) Purple flying squid (Sthenoteuthis oualaniensis) Notes: EFH = Essential Fish Habitat, HAPC = Habitat Area of Particular Concern, EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone, m = meters Source: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009
The eggs and larvae of all teleost PMUS are pelagic. Eggs are slightly buoyant when first spawned, are spread throughout the mixed layer, and are subject to advection by the prevailing ocean currents. Because the eggs and larvae of the PMUS are found distributed throughout the tropical (and in summer, the subtropical) epipelagic zone, EFH for these life stages has been designated as the epipelagic zone (~200 m) from the shoreline to the outer limit of the EEZ. The EFH for juveniles and adults of PMUS is
3-33 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
the water column extending from the shoreline to a depth of 3,280 ft. (1,000 m). See Appendix B for additional details on the life history and habitat utilization patterns of individual PMUS.
3.1.4.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern The WPRFMC designated the water column to a depth of 1,000 m above all seamounts and banks within the EEZ shallower than 2,000 m from the surface as HAPC for PMUS.
The relevance of topographic features deeper than 1,000 m is due to the influence they have on the overlying mesopelagic zone. These deeper features (e.g., seamounts) are not designated as EFH or HAPC, but the waters down to 1,000 m that are designated as HAPC can be influenced by topographic features extending below 1,000 m. The 2,000 m depth contour captures the summits of most seamounts and all banks within the EEZ waters under the WPRFMC’s jurisdiction. The basis for designating these areas as HAPC is the ecological function provided, the rarity of the habitat type, the susceptibility of these areas to human-induced environmental degradation, and proposed activities that may stress the habitat type.
Because the PMUS are highly migratory, the areas outside the EEZ in the Western Pacific Region are designated by the WPRFMC as “important habitat” because they provide essential spawning, breeding, and foraging habitat.
3.1.4.3 Figures and Maps Figure 3-22 shows the EFH for all lifestages of pelagic fishes designated on Guam, Tinian, and FDM.
3-34 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-22: Essential Fish Habitat for All Lifestages of Pelagic Fishes Designated on Guam, Tinian, and Farallon de Medinilla
3-35 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF HABITATS The Study Area covers a range of marine habitats which support a myriad of fish and invertebrate communities. Waters of the Study Area include shoreline or littoral habitats between the mean high and low water lines, bottom habitats below the mean high water line, and the overlying water column.
For littoral and bottom habitats, the habitat classification system described herein is a modified version of the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). The structure of the original classification system allows it to be used at any of several hierarchical levels. The original classification employs 5 system names, 8 subsystem names, 11 class names, 28 subclass names, and an unspecified number of dominance types. The modified classification system starts at the subsystem level (e.g., intertidal shores/subtidal bottoms) and focuses analysis on a modified class level (e.g., soft shores/bottoms, hard shores/bottoms) and differentiates non-living substrates from living structures on the substrate. Living structures on the substrate are termed biogenic habitats, and include wetland plants, submerged aquatic vegetation (attached macroalgae and rooted vascular plants), sedentary invertebrate beds, and reefs. As such, these classifications may or may not overlap with the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (Federal Geographic Data Committee 2012) catalog of terms that provides a means for classifying ecological units using a simple, standard format and common terminology. Therefore, Table 3-4 aligns the habitat groupings used in this analysis with the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Classifications.
Table 3-4: Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Crosswalk
MITT EIS/OEIS Relationship CMECS Class/ Relationship Habitat Type and Confidence to CMECS Subclass Notes Subtypes
CMECS Unconsolidated Substrate = Cowardin Unconsolidated 1 Unconsolidated Shore + Soft Shores < Certain Substrate Unconsolidated bottom. Shore is considered in the CMECS Geoform Component. Somewhat Beach = Beach Certain MITT habitat type = CMECS Tidal Delta/mudflats ebb tidal delta and tidal riverine Somewhat < Flat flat + flood tidal and estuarine Certain delta flat + tidal streambeds flat+ wind tidal flat
3-36 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 3-4: Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Crosswalk (continued)
MITT EIS/OEIS Relationship CMECS Class/ Relationship Habitat Type and Confidence to CMECS Subclass Notes Subtypes
CMECS Rock substrate = Cowardin Rocky Shore + Rock Rocky Shores1 < Rock Substrate Certain Bottom. Shore is considered in the CMECS Geoform Component. Vegetated Shores1 = Emergent Wetland Certain Somewhat Salt/Brackish Marsh ≈ Emergent Tidal Marsh Certain MITT Mangrove = CMECS Tidal Mangrove Tidal Mangrove Forest, Shrubland + Somewhat Mangrove > Tidal Mangrove Tidal Mangrove Certain Shrubland Forest. MITT Mangrove has no height threshold. Aquatic Beds1 = Aquatic Vegetation Bed Certain MITT Seagrass = CMECS Freshwater and Brackish Tidal Aquatic Vascular Somewhat Aquatic Seagrass ≈ Vegetation Certain Vegetation + Seagrass bed. MITT Seagrass has no salinity threshold. Somewhat Sargassum < Bethic Macroalgae Certain CMECS Unconsolidated Substrate = 1 Unconsolidated Cowardin Soft Bottoms < Certain Substrate Unconsolidated Shore + Unconsolidated Bottom Somewhat Lagoons ≈ Lagoon Certain Somewhat Abyssal Plain ≈ Abyssal Plain Certain
3-37 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 3-4: Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard Crosswalk (continued)
MITT EIS/OEIS Relationship CMECS Class/ Relationship Habitat Type and Confidence to CMECS Subclass Notes Subtypes
CMECS Tectonic Trench = General Somewhat description of Mariana Trench ≈ Tectonic Trench Certain trenches, Mariana Trench is specific to Study Area. CMECS Rock Substrate= Hard Bottoms1 < Rock Substrate Certain Cowardin Rocky Shore + Rock Bottom. Shallow/Mesophotic Somewhat Biotic/Reef ≈ Coral Reef Biota Certain Seamount (Level 1) MITT Seamount = CMECS Guyot + Knoll + Somewhat Seamount > Pinnacles. MITT Certain Seamounts does not have shape delimiters. Hydrothermal Vent MITT (Level 2), Hydrothermal Hydrothermal Vent Field Somewhat Vent does not Hydrothermal vents > (Level 1 and 2) Certain have a number of vents threshold. Anthropogenic Substrate = includes classes dependent on Artificial Anthropogenic Somewhat the < Structures Substrate Certain anthropogenic material; however, materials in the Study Area vary Somewhat Artificial Reefs ≈ Artificial Reef Certain Somewhat Shipwrecks ≈ Wreck (Level 2) Certain
Somewhat FADs ≈ Buoy (Level 2) Certain 1 These habitat types were derived directly from Cowardin 1979. Notes: CMECS = Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard, Study Area = Mariana Islands Training and Testing Study Area, FAD = Fish Aggregating Device
3-38 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
The ecological functions of the substrate and biogenic habitat for managed species and life stages are implied by their presence, extent and quality within an area. Information documenting habitat presence within broad geographic areas is widely available, whereas data on spatial extent and quality are sparse and inconsistently classified. Establishing a proper baseline for impact assessment will be primarily qualitative for habitats with sparse and inconsistent spatial data (noted in respective habitat section), and quantitative in some areas.
3.2.1 WATER COLUMN The flow and quality of water in the water column are key factors linking fish, habitat, and fishery activities. Water column properties that may affect fisheries resources include temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus), and chlorophyll a (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009). Other factors, such as depth, pH, water velocity and movement, and water clarity, also affect the distribution of aquatic organisms.
Water column parameters referenced in EFH and HAPCs descriptions include waters (e.g., offshore, nearshore, estuarine), vertical layers (e.g., epipelagic, benthic, thermocline), and salinity zones (e.g., mesohaline). Any reference to water bodies (e.g., all estuaries) implies the inclusion of all shore and bottom habitats, unless selected habitats are specified (e.g., pelagic/demersal species; Appendix B).
Water types that characterize the Study Area vary along the continuum from estuaries at the mouths of coastal rivers to offshore ocean waters. Salinity is often used to distinguish bodies of water; however, salinity “boundaries” are not fixed but fluctuate depending on season, precipitation, winds, and global climate changes (e.g., El Niño). The salinity of coastal, estuarine waters can vary dramatically from ~0 to 30 practical salinity units (psu) depending on several factors; however, on average salinity increases with distance from shore. Ocean waters can be defined based on salinity as the water column seaward of estuarine salinities (i.e., seaward of approximately 30 psu). On average, ocean waters have a salinity of 35 psu. Shallower, nearshore waters in the neritic zone (i.e., waters over the continental shelf) can have salinities between 27 and 30 psu (Lalli and Parsons 1997). Salinity also varies with depth. In general, salinity increases with depth.
Essential Fish Habitat designations may refer to ocean zones in defining the EFH. The pelagic zone is generally regarded as extending from the low tide line seaward and includes the neritic zone and the ocean zone. Offshore, ocean waters are defined herein as the water column seaward of the neritic zone (Figure 3-23). Overlap occurs between the nearshore waters of the neritic zone and estuarine systems where lower salinity plumes from riverine outflow enter continental shelf waters. Bays, inlets, sounds, tidal creeks, and coastal rivers are characterized by estuarine waters. Offshore, nearshore, and estuarine waters occur within all fishery management council regions.
3-39 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-23: Three-Dimensional Representation of a Continental Margin and Abyssal Zone
3.2.1.1 Currents, Circulation Patterns, and Water Masses In ocean waters, large scale gyres and oceanic currents create physical and chemical dynamics that influence the distribution of organisms. Ocean circulation in the Study Area is dominated by the east to west motion of the North Equatorial Current (Starmer et al. 2008; Figure 3-24). The North Equatorial Current is the southern current in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre which occurs between the equator and 50° N and is defined to the north by the North Pacific Current, to the east by the California Current, to the south by the North Equatorial Current, and to the west by the Kuroshio Current (Tomczak and Godfrey 2005). The North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, like all the ocean’s large subtropical gyres, has extremely low rates of primary productivity (Valiela 1995) caused by a persistent thermocline (a distinct layer of water in which temperature changes more rapidly with depth than it does above or below) that prevents the vertical mixing of water. Thermocline layers are present in the water column at varying depths throughout the world’s oceans; however, in most areas, particularly nearshore, they are broken down seasonally, allowing nutrient rich waters below the thermocline to replenish surface waters and fuel primary production.
Surface currents are horizontal movements of water primarily driven by the drag of the wind over the sea surface. Wind-driven circulation dominates in the upper 330 ft. (100 m) of the water column and therefore drives circulation over continental shelves (Hunter et al. 2007). Surface currents of the Pacific Ocean include equatorial, circumpolar, eastern boundary, and western boundary currents. In the Study Area, there are persistent trade winds from the east-northeast which generate wind driven waves and circulation patterns (Starmer et al. 2008). The overall flow in the Study Area is northwestward; however,
3-40 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
very little is known about the oceanic circulation around the islands in the Study Area and the impact that the eddies that the islands create has upon the circulation of the open ocean (Wolanski et al. 2003).
Similar to cold fronts and warm fronts in the atmosphere, an oceanic front is the boundary between two water masses with distinct differences in temperature and salinity (i.e., density). An oceanic front is characterized by rapid changes in water properties over a short distance.
Figure 3-24: Surface Circulation of the Pacific Ocean and Outline of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre
3.2.1.2 Water Column Characteristics and Processes The characteristics of the water column are defined by the temperature, salinity, and density of waters in the region. The physical and chemical properties of the water column affect primary production in the region.
3-41 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Sea surface temperature varies considerably across the Pacific Ocean with warmest waters near the equator and coldest waters at the poles. Sea surface temperature also varies seasonally with warmest temperatures occurring in August/September and coldest in February/March in the Study Area (Pickard and Emery 1990). Annual changes of a few degrees can also occur at the latitudes in the Study Area, and diurnal changes in isolated areas of the open ocean are also known to occur. Spatial and temporal variations in sea surface temperate are greater near the coast than in the open ocean due to factors such as riverine outflow, shallower waters, and longitudinal currents that transport warmer or cooler waters along the coast (Pickard and Emery 1990). Sea surface temperatures are also affected by atmospheric conditions (e.g., winds), which can lead to seasonal upwelling (Tomczak and Godfrey 2005). In the Study Area, sea surface temperature averages 82 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (28°C) with little seasonal variation (Pacific Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment Program 2012; Figure 3-25).
In the open ocean portion of the Study Area, the water column contains a well-mixed surface layer extending to a depth of approximately 400 ft. (125 m). Immediately below the mixed layer is a zone where the temperature declines rapidly with depth, known as the thermocline. In low latitudes, which include the Study Area, water temperature at the bottom of the thermocline ranges from 40 to 50°F (5 to 10°C). The temperature of deeper waters (> 1,600 ft. [500 m]) is relatively constant (Pickard and Emery 1990). Unlike in more temperate climates, the thermocline is relatively stable, rarely breaking down and allowing the nutrient-rich, deeper waters to mix with surface waters. This constitutes what has been defined as a “significant” surface duct (a mixed layer of constant temperature extending from the sea surface to approximately 100 ft. [30 m] or more), which influences the transmission of sound in the water.
3-42 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-25: Sea Surface Temperature Showing the Seasonal Variation in the Mariana Islands Training and Testing Study Area
3-43 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Seawater is made up of a number of components including gases, nutrients, dissolved compounds, particulate matter (solid compounds such as sand, marine organisms, and feces), and trace metals (Garrison 1998). Seawater characteristics are primarily determined by temperature and the gases and solids dissolved in it.
Seawater is primarily composed of dissolved salts. Chloride, sodium, calcium, potassium, magnesium, and sulfate make up 98 percent of the solids in seawater, with chloride and sodium making up 85 percent of that total (Garrison 1998, Lalli and Parsons 1997). Sea surface salinity within the Study Area ranges from 33 to 35 parts per thousand, with lower salinities closer to shore (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2009; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 2009).
The density of seawater varies with salinity and temperature (Libes 1992), which leads to stratification (i.e., arranged in layers) of the water column. In open areas, there are typically three density layers in the water column: a surface layer (0–600 ft. [0–200 m]), an intermediate layer (600–5,000 ft. [200–1,500 m]), and a deep layer (below 5,000 ft. [1,500 m]) (Castro and Huber 2007).
Nutrients are chemicals or elements necessary to for primary production (i.e., the conversion of inorganic material into organic material by photosynthetic organisms). Basic nutrients in seawater include dissolved nitrogen, phosphates, and silicates. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen occurs in ocean waters as nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia, with nitrates as the dominant form. The nitrate concentration of the coastal waters within the Study Area is low ranging from approximately 0.54–0.33 micrograms per liter. Growth and production of primary producers (e.g., phytoplankton) is often limited by the availability of a nutrient (e.g., nitrate) (Lalli and Parsons 1997). Overall nutrients in the Study Area tend to increase in concentration with increasing water depth (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010). Although not a primary nutrient, the availability of iron can affect primary production in the marine environment. Iron is introduced to the marine environment primarily in the form of sediments carried by rivers and wind driven transport from continents, as well as from volcanic eruptions (Langmann et al. 2010). Iron is a limiting factor for growth of phytoplankton in high nutrient, low chlorophyll surface water (Coale et al. 1998; Coale et al. 1996; Martin and Gordon 1988).
3.2.1.3 Bathymetry This section provides a description of the bathymetry (water depth) of the Study Area. Given that the bathymetry of an area reflects the topography (surface features) of the seafloor, it is an important factor for understanding the potential impacts of Navy training and testing activities on the seafloor, the propagation of underwater sound, and species diversity. The discussion of bathymetry includes a general overview of the marine geology in the Study Area and a description of the bathymetry of Navy training and testing areas.
The contour of the ocean floor as it descends from the shoreline has an important influence on the distribution of organisms, as well as the structure and function of marine ecosystems (Madden et al. 2009). The Study Area is located at the intersection of the Philippine and Pacific crustal plates, atop what is believed to be the oldest seafloor on the planet dating to the Jurassic era. The collision of the two plates has resulted in the subduction of the Pacific Plate beneath the Philippine Plate forming the Mariana Trench. The Mariana Trench is over 1,410 miles (mi.) (2,269 kilometers [km]) long and 71 mi. (114 km) wide. The deepest point on Earth, known as Challenger Deep, is in the Mariana Trench at a depth of approximately 35,400 ft. (10,800 m) (Lutz and Falkowski 2012). Challenger Deep is located
3-44 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
338 mi. (544 km) southwest of Guam in the southwestern extremity of the Mariana Trench (U.S. Department of the Navy 2010).
The seafloor of the Study Area region is characterized by the Mariana Trench, the Mariana Trough, ridges, numerous seamounts (or guyots), hydrothermal vents, and volcanic activity (Figure 3-26). Two volcanic arcs, the West Mariana Ridge (a remnant volcanic arc) and the Mariana Ridge (an active volcanic arc) are separated by the Mariana Trough. The Mariana Trough formed when the oceanic crust in this region began to spread between the ridges 4 million years ago. The Mariana Trough is spreading at a rate of less than 0.4 in. (1 cm) per year in the northern region and at rates up to 1.2 in. (3 cm) per year in the center of the trough. The Mariana archipelago is located on the Mariana Ridge, 99–124 mi. (159–200 km) west of the Mariana Trench subduction zone. The Mariana archipelago comprises 15 volcanic islands: Guam, Rota, Tinian, Saipan, FDM, Aguijan, Anatahan, Sarigan, Guguan, Alamagan, Pagan, Agrigan, Asuncion, Maug, and Farallon de Pajaros. Approximately 497 mi. (795 km) separate Guam from Farallon de Pajaros.
The islands north of FDM are located on an active volcanic ridge and were formed between 1.3 and 10 million years ago. The six southern islands (Guam to FDM) are on the old Mariana fore-arc ridge and formed about 43 million years ago (Eocene). The young, active volcanic ridge is approximately 16–22 mi. (26–35 km) west of the southern ridge. The islands on the southern ridge consist of a volcanic core covered by thick coralline limestone (up to several hundreds of meters). The subsidence of the original volcanoes in the southern islands allowed for the capping of the volcanoes by limestone deposits. Limestone covers the northern half of Guam (limestone plateau height: 295–590 ft. (90–180 m) above mean sea level) while volcanic rock and clay are exposed on the southern half of the island. Tinian consists of rocky shoreline cliffs and limestone plateaus with no apparent volcanic rock. Similar to Tinian, the uplifted limestone substrate of FDM is bordered by steep cliffs (The Environmental Company 2004).
In contrast, volcanoes north of FDM have not subsided below sea level, do not have limestone caps, and remain active. The islands of Anatahan, Guguan, Alamagan, and Pagan are affected by two active volcanoes, and the islands of Agrigan, Asuncion, and Farallon de Pajaros have documented volcanic activity spanning from 1883 to 1967. Ruby Volcano and Esmeralda Bank are submarine volcanoes found west of Saipan and Tinian. Ruby Volcano erupted in 1966 and then again in 1995 as the surrounding area experienced submarine explosions, fish kills, a sulfurous odor, bubbling water, and volcanic tremors Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History 1995). Ruby Volcano, also known as Ruby Seamount, is 25 mi. (40 km) northwest of Saipan and is estimated to be approximately 200 ft. (61 m) below sea level (U.S. Department of the Navy 2010). The summits of the Esmeralda Bank are from 140 to 460 ft. (43 to 140 m) beneath the sea surface as reported in U.S. Department of the Navy 2010.
3-45 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-26: Seafloor Surrounding the Mariana Islands
3-46 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
3.2.1.4 Water Column Essential Fish Habitat The list of managed species and life-stages for which water column areas are referenced in the EFH or HAPCs descriptions are compiled in Appendix B, and a summary of water column EFH and HAPCs designated by the WPRFMC is provided in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5: Water Column Essential Fish Habitat and Habit Areas of Particular Concern References within the Mariana Islands Training and Testing Study Area
Water Occurrence EFH or Column Habitat Area in Study HAPC Parameters Area Offshore EFH Waters Nearshore EFH Estuarine EFH All EEZ waters All EEZ waters above the thermocline Less than or equal to 100 m EFH Less than or equal to 150 m EFH Vertical layers Less than or equal to 400 m EFH Between 550 and 700 m EFH Less than or equal to 600 m EFH Less than or equal to1,000 m EFH/HAPC Less than or equal to 3,500 m Notes: (1) The habitats listed may or may not be represented in the available Geographic Information Systems data. (2) EFH = Essential Fish Habitat, HAPC = Habitat Area of Particular Concern, EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone, m = meters
3.2.2 SUBSTRATES The fundamental descriptor of substrates as either soft or hard is a key factor in structuring biogenic habitats (Nybakken 1993). The substrate type is also referenced in the EFH or HAPC designations for species/life stages, which are compiled in Appendix B. A summary of the types of substrates designated as EFH and HAPC is provided in Table 3-6. Seafloor features (e.g., seamounts, banks, slopes, escarpments) are included among the types of substrate and are identified on the habitat maps where geospatial information is available. Bottom substrates in the Study Area are shown in Figures 3-27 through 3-31.
3-47 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 3-6: Substrate Essential Fish Habitat and Habit Areas of Particular Concern References within the Mariana Islands Training and Testing Study Area
Occurrence EFH or Habitats in the Study HAPC Area
Rocky Shelf Non-Rocky Shelf Canyon Continental Slope/Basin HAPC Soft Substrate EFH Coral Reef/Hard Substrate EFH Patch Reefs EFH Surge Zone EFH Deep-slope Terraces EFH Banks HAPC Seamounts HAPC Notes: (1) The habitats listed may or may not be represented in the available Geographic Information system data. (2) EFH = Essential Fish Habitat, HAPC = Habitat Area of Particular Concern
3-48 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-27: Bottom Substrate around Guam
3-49 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-28: Bottom Substrate in Apra Harbor
3-50 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-29: Bottom Substrate around Saipan
3-51 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-30: Bottom Substrate around Tinian
3-52 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-31: Bottom Substrate around Farallon de Medinilla
3-53 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
3.2.2.1 Soft Shores Soft shores include all wetland habitats having three characteristics: (1) unconsolidated substrates with less than 75 percent aerial coverage of stones, boulders, or bedrock; (2) less than 30 percent aerial coverage of vegetation other than pioneering plants; and (3) any of the following water regimes: irregularly exposed, regularly flooded, irregularly flooded, seasonally flooded, temporarily flooded, intermittently flooded, saturated, or artificially flooded (Cowardin et al. 1979). Soft shores include beaches, tidal flats and deltas, and stream beds of the tidal riverine and estuarine systems.
Intermittent or intertidal riverine channels and intertidal estuarine channels are classified as streambeds. Intertidal flats, also known as tidal flats or mudflats, consist of loose mud, silt, and fine sand with organic-mineral mixtures that are regularly exposed and flooded by the tides (Karleskint et al. 2006). Muddy, fine sediment is deposited in sheltered inlets and estuaries where wave energy is low (Holland and Elmore 2008). Mudflats are typically unvegetated, but may be covered with mats of green algae and benthic diatoms (single-celled algae), or sparsely vegetated with low-growing aquatic plants. The muddy, intertidal habitat occurs most often as part of a patchwork of intertidal habitats that may include rocky shores, tidal creeks, sandy beaches, salt marshes, and mangroves.
Beaches form through the interaction of waves and tides, as particles are sorted by size and deposited along the shoreline (Karleskint et al. 2006). Wide flat beaches with fine-grained sands occur where wave energy is limited. Narrow, steep beaches of coarser sand form where energy and tidal ranges are high (Speybroeck et al. 2008). Three zones characterize beach habitats: (1) dry areas above the mean high water, (2) wrack line (line of organic debris left on the beach by the action of tides) at the mean high water mark, and (3) a high-energy intertidal zone.
On the island of Guam, the majority of the coastline is comprised of rocky intertidal regions. Interspersed among this rocky shoreline are 58 beaches composed of calcareous or volcanic sands (Eldredge 1983). The west coast of Saipan contains well developed fine-sand beaches protected by the Saigon and Tanapag Lagoons (Scott 1993). All other beaches on Saipan consist of coral-algal-mollusk rubble. The island of Tinian has 13 beaches (10 located on the west coast and 3 on the east coast). These beaches are not well developed (except Tinian Harbor on the southwest coast, and Unai Dankulo along the east coast) and are comprised mainly of medium to coarse grain calcareous sands, gravel, and coral rubble (Eldredge 1983; Kolinski et al. 2001). On Rota, the rare beaches are found scattered among limestone patches and are composed of rubble and sand (Eldredge 1983). The coastal area of FDM contains two small intertidal beaches on the northeastern and western coastlines that are inundated at high tide.
3.2.2.2 Hard Shores Hard shores include aquatic environments characterized by bedrock, stones, or boulders that, singly or in combination, cover 75 percent or more of the substrate and where vegetation covers less than 30 percent (Cowardin et al. 1979). Water regimes are restricted to irregularly exposed, regularly flooded, irregularly flooded, seasonally flooded, temporarily flooded, and intermittently flooded. Rocky intertidal shores are areas of bedrock that alternate between periods of submergence at high tide and exposure to air at low tide. Extensive rocky shorelines can be interspersed with sandy areas, estuaries, or river mouths.
Environmental gradients between hard shorelines and subtidal habitats are determined by wave action, depth and frequency of tidal inundation, and stability of the substrate. Where wave energy is extreme, only rock outcrops may persist. In areas where wave energy is lower, a mixture of rock sizes will form
3-54 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
the intertidal zone. Boulders scattered in the intertidal and subtidal areas provide substrate for attached macroalgae and sessile invertebrates.
Hard shores are the dominant marine habitat on all islands within the Study Area. This is due to the volcanic origin of all of the islands (Eldredge 1983). Coastlines within the Study Area are generally lined with rocky intertidal areas, steep cliffs and headlands, and the occasional sandy beach or mudflat (Eldredge 1983). Erosion of rocky coastlines by the sea in the Study Area has produced wave-cut cliffs (created by undercutting the shoreline and causing large sections to fall into the sea). Erosion has also resulted in sea-level benches comprised of volcanic rock or limestone along the coastline of some islands (Eldredge 1979, 1983). Large block and boulders often buttress the foot of steep cliffs in the Study Area.
3.2.2.3 Soft Bottoms Soft bottoms include all wetland and deepwater habitats with at least 25 percent cover of particles smaller than stones (10–24 in. [25–60 cm]), and a vegetative coverage less than 30 percent (Cowardin et al. 1979). Water regimes are restricted to subtidal, permanently flooded, intermittently exposed, and semi-permanently flooded. Soft bottom forms the substrate of channels, shoals, subtidal flats, and other features of the bottom. Sandy channels emerge where strong currents connect estuarine and ocean water columns. Shoals form where sand is deposited along converging, sediment-laden currents forming capes. Subtidal flats occur between the soft shores and the channels or shoals.
Soft bottom substrates in coastal regions of the Study Area are not common. This is due to the fact that the intertidal and subtidal regions are often characterized by limestone pavement interspersed with coral colonies and submerged boulders (Kolinski et al. 2001). Shorelines are often rocky with interspersed sand beaches or mud flats (Eldredge 1983; Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants 1985).
One type of soft bottom habitat that occurs in the Study Area is lagoons. A lagoon can be described as a semi-enclosed bay found between the shoreline and the landward edge of a fringing reef or barrier reef (National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005). Lagoons typically contain three distinct zones: freshwater zone, transitional zone, and saltwater zone (Thurman 1997). Most tropical reef-associated lagoons are not brackish and lack significant freshwater input. The bottoms of the lagoons are mostly sandy and can be flat, rippled, or filled with sand mounds created by burrowing organisms. Coral rubble, coral mounds, seagrass, and algae are found within the lagoons. Coral mounds tend to be more abundant in the outer lagoons and are widely scattered or absent in the inner lagoons (National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005; Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants 1985).
Lagoons of coastal Guam are associated with Apra Harbor (Inner Harbor, Outer Harbor, and Sasa Bay), Cocos Lagoon, and numerous embayments along the western coastline. Apra Harbor is the only deep lagoon on Guam and is the busiest port in the Mariana Islands. The Outer Harbor is enclosed by the Glass Breakwater. Sasa Bay, located on the edge of the Outer Harbor, is a shallow coastal lagoon populated with patchy corals (Scott 1993). The Inner Apra Harbor is a human-made lagoon created by dredging in the 1940s. Cocos Lagoon, a shallow lagoon (40 ft. [12.2 m] deep), is located on the southern tip of Guam and is encompassed by a series of barrier and fringing reefs (Paulay et al. 2002). The majority of the substrate in Apra Harbor is sand, as depicted in Figure 3-28; however, there are intermittent patches of harder substrates (shoals and reefs) within the harbor.
3-55 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
The western coastline of Saipan is lined with sandy beaches protected by a barrier reef which forms Tanapag and Saipan Lagoons (Scott 1993). Tanapag Lagoon is a typical high-island barrier reef lagoon. Tanapag Lagoon is located on the northwestern coast of Saipan. Also, on the western coastline of Saipan, the barrier reefs form two additional lagoons, creating the largest lagoon system in the Mariana Islands, Garapan Lagoon and Chalan Kanoa Lagoon (Environmental Services Duenas & Associates 1997). The western side of Tinian has limited lagoon development near the harbor, whereas Rota does not have any well developed lagoon formations (Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants 1985). Offshore of FDM, at a depth of approximately 65 ft. (19.8 m), the sandy soft bottom seafloor slopes abruptly downward toward the abyssal plain (U.S. Department of the Navy 2005). Most of the other islands in the Marianas also have sandy slopes below the fore reef, typically starting at 100–130 ft. (30.48–39.62 m), with some variations (U.S. Department of the Navy 2005). See Figures 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, and 3-31 for information on the distribution of soft bottom habitats as derived by satellite imagery by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), near Guam, Apra Harbor, Saipan, Tinian, and FDM, respectively.
In the open ocean portion of the Study Area, soft bottom habitat is located in the Mariana Trough. The Mariana Trough is comprised of a large relatively flat abyssal plain with water depths ranging from approximately 11,500–13,100 ft. (3,505.2–3,992.9 m) (Thurman 1997). Very little data regarding the Mariana Trough within the Study Area has been obtained. However, in general abyssal plains can be described as large and relatively flat regions covered in a thick layer of fine silty sediments with the topography interrupted by occasional mounds and seamounts (Kennett 1982; Thurman 1997). The abyssal plain and similar deepwater areas were originally thought to be devoid of life; however recent research has shown that these areas are host to thousands of species of invertebrates and fish ("The Mariana Trench - Biology - Part 1" 2003).
3.2.2.4 Hard Bottoms Hard, rocky bottom includes all subtidal habitats with substrates having an areal cover of stones, boulders, or bedrock 75 percent or greater and vegetative cover of less than 30 percent (Cowardin et al. 1979). Generic hard bottom could be any naturally occurring material on the bottom that is sufficiently solid and stationary (e.g., hard consolidated mud) to support sedentary, attached macroalgae or invertebrates (e.g., barnacles, anemones, hard corals). As such, hard bottom substrate forms the foundation of attached macroalgae beds, sedentary invertebrate beds, and reefs.
Subtidal rocky bottom occurs as extensions of intertidal rocky shores and as isolated offshore outcrops. The shapes and textures of the larger rock assemblages and the fine details of cracks and crevices are determined by the type of rock, the wave energy, and other local variables (Davis 2009). Maintenance of rocky reefs requires wave energy sufficient to sweep sediment away (Lalli and Parsons 1993) or OS areas lacking a significant sediment supply; therefore, rocky reefs are rare on broad coastal plains near sediment-laden rivers and are more common on high-energy shores and beneath strong bottom currents, where sediments cannot accumulate. The shapes of the rocks determine, in part, the type of community that develops on a rocky bottom (Witman and Dayton 2001).
Islands within the Study Area (Guam to FDM) support reefs as do islands north of FDM (Anatahan, Sarigan, Guguan, Alamagan, Maug, and Farallon de Pajaros). Reefs are also found on OS banks including Galvez bank located 12 mi. (19.3 km) south of Guam, Santa Rosa Reef located 25 mi. (40.2 km) south- southwest of Guam, Arakane Bank located 200 mi. (321.9 km) west-northwest of Saipan, Tatsumi Reef located 1.2 mi. (1.93 km) southeast of Tinian, Pathfinder Bank located 170 mi. (273.6 km) west of Anahatan, and Supply Reef located 11.5 mi. (18.5 km) northwest of Maug Island (Starmer 2005). The
3-56 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
degree of reef development depends on a number of environmental controls including the age of the islands; volcanic activity; the availability of favorable substrates and habitats; weathering caused by groundwater discharge, sedimentation, and runoff accentuated by the overgrazing of feral animals; and varying levels of exposure to wave action, trade winds, and storms (Eldredge 1983; Paulay 2003; Randall 1985, 1995; Randall et al. 1984; Starmer 2005). See Figures 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, and 3-31 for information on the distribution of hard bottom habitats in the open ocean, near Guam, Apra Harbor, Saipan, Tinian, and FDM, respectively.
Within the open ocean portion of the Study Area, two types of hard bottom habitat are seamounts and flat-topped seamounts known as guyots. Generally, seamounts tend to be conical in shape and volcanic in origin, although some seamounts are formed by vertical tectonic activity along converging plate margins (Rogers 1994). Both volcanic and tectonic seamounts are present in the open ocean portion of the Study Area. Seamount and guyot topography is a striking contrast to the surrounding flat, sediment-covered abyssal plain. Seamounts and guyots can affect local ocean circulation causing upwelling, which can supply nutrients to surface waters (Rogers 1994; Lalli and Parsons 1997). Figure 3-26 shows the locations of both seamounts and guyots in the Study Area. Refer to biological resources chapters of the MITT EIS/OEIS for more information on species inhabiting seamounts.
Deep-sea hydrothermal vents occur in areas of crustal formation near mid-ocean ridge systems (Humphris 1995). A number of hydrothermal vents have been located in the Study Area, and it is likely that more exist. Evidence of active hydrothermal venting has been identified in the vicinity of more than 12 submarine volcanoes and at two sites along the back-arc spreading center off to the west of the Mariana Islands (Embley et al. 2004; Kojima 2002). Hydrothermal vents located in the Mariana Trough experience high levels of site specific species due to their geographic isolation from other vent systems. At least 8 of the 30 identified genera known to occur only in the western Pacific hydrothermal vent systems are found in the Mariana Trough (Hessler and Lonsdale 1991; Paulay 2003). Hydrothermal vents at Esmeralda Bank, one of the active submarine volcanoes in the Study Area, span an area of 0.08 square mile (0.207 square kilometer) on the seafloor and expel water with temperatures exceeding 172°F (77.8°C) (Stuben et al. 1992). West of Guam and on the Mariana Ridge, there are three known hydrothermal vent fields: Forecast Vent site (13°24’N, 143°55’E, depth 4,750 ft. [1,447.8 m]), TOTO Caldera (12°43’N, 143°32’E), and the 13° N Ridge (13°05’N, 143°41’E) (Kojima 2002). Refer to biological resources chapters of the MITT EIS/OEIS for more information on species inhabiting hydrothermal vents.
3.2.2.5 Artificial Structures Artificial habitats are human-made structures that provide habitat for marine organisms. Artificial habitats occur in the marine environment either designed with the intention of being used as habitat (e.g., artificial reefs), designed with the intention of functioning as something other than habitat (e.g., fish aggregating devices, which are floating objects moored at specific locations in the ocean to attract fishes that live in the open ocean), or are unintentional (e.g., shipwrecks). Artificial structures function as hard bottom by providing structural attachment points for algae and sessile invertebrates, which in turn support a community of animals that feed, seek shelter, and reproduce there (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2007).
Artificial habitats in the Study Area include artificial reefs, shipwrecks, and fish aggregating devices. Artificial reefs are designed and deployed to supplement the ecological services provided by coral or rocky reefs. Artificial reefs range from simple concrete blocks to highly engineered structures. Vessels that sink to the seafloor, including shipwrecks within the Study Area, are colonized by the common
3-57 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
encrusting and attached marine organisms that attach to hard bases. Over time, the wrecks become functioning ecosystems.
Many shipwrecks are found within the Study Area, including grounded vessels and military wreckage. Vessels have probably wrecked upon the shores of the Mariana Islands since Spanish galleons sailed to these islands during the seventeenth century. There are abundant WWII-era remains (including sunken ships, airplanes, and tanks) along the shores of the Mariana Islands that resulted from the battles of Guam, Saipan, and Tinian (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 2001). Surrounding Guam there are 63 documented shipwrecks dating between 1520 and 1941 (Carrell et al. 1991). However, only the locations of about 60 known wrecks, obstructions, or occurrences (e.g., shipwrecks, aircraft, and military equipment) have been determined (Figure 3-32), including one World War II-era amphibious tractor in Agat Bay and 31 submerged wrecks, obstructions, or occurrences in the Guam Commercial Harbor (work and fishing boats; barges; tugs; landing craft utility vessels; a British passenger ship (“C S Scotia”); WWII Japanese freighters or transport ships (“Tokai Maru,” “Kitsugawa Maru,” and “Nichiyu Maru”); and three Japanese planes from World War II commonly referred to as Val, Jake, and Hufe (Carrell et al. 1991; Lotz 1998).
Most artificial reefs intended as habitat in marine waters have been placed and monitored by individual state programs; national and state databases indicating the locations of artificial reefs are not available (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2007). In the Study Area, there are dedicated artificial reefs found in two locations: Agat Bay, Guam and Apra Harbor, Guam. In 1969, 357 tires were tied together and scattered over a 5,000-square-foot (ft.2) (4,645-square-meter [m2]) area in Cocos Lagoon (Eldredge 1979). In the early 1970s, a second reef consisting of 2,500 tires was also placed in Cocos Lagoon (Eldredge 1979). These tire reefs have disintegrated and no longer serve as artificial reefs. In 1977, a 52.5 ft. (16.0 m) barge was modified to enhance fish habitat and was sunk in 60 ft. (18.3 m) of water in Agat Bay. In Apra Harbor, the “American Tanker” was sunk in 1944 at the entrance of the harbor to act as a breakwater. In 1944, the 76th Naval Construction Battalion (SEABEES) built the Glass Breakwater which forms the north and northwest sides of Apra Harbor (Thompson 2002). The enormous seawall is made of 1,200 acre-feet (148,000 cubic meters [m3]) of soil and coral extracted from Cabras Island (Thompson 2002). The Glass Breakwater is the largest artificial substrate in the Marianas.
Currently, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands maintain several fish aggregating devices within 20 nm of the shoreline (Chapman 2004; Guam Department of Agriculture Division of Aquatic and Wildlife 2004). Figures 3-33 and 3-34 show the locations of the fish aggregating devices surrounding Guam, Tinian, and Saipan. Lost fish aggregating devices are replaced normally within 2 weeks (Chapman 2004). Fish aggregating device sites may change frequently; the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for keeping track of these changes. Fish aggregating device buoys, with long chains, may be considered a safety hazard if the buoys become disconnected.
3-58 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-32: Known Shipwrecks and Other Obstructions within 12 Nautical Miles of Guam, Rota, Tinian, and Saipan
3-59 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-33: Fish Aggregating Devices Surrounding Guam
3-60 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-34: Fish Aggregating Devices around Tinian and Saipan
3-61 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
3.2.3 BIOGENIC HABITATS Living structures on the substrate are termed biogenic habitats, and include wetland shores, attached macroalgae beds, submerged rooted vegetation beds, and coral reefs (refer to relevant sections for detailed description). The differences between biogenic habitats reflect a basic continuum of resilience and recovery from disturbance; attached macroalgae recover quickly from the least disturbance (Mach et al. 2007), whereas reef structures take a very long time to recover from a relatively high level of disturbance (Fox and Caldwell 2006). The biogenic habitats also correspond to the EFH or HAPC descriptors for species/life stages (see Table 3-1). The biogenic habitats are classified by water (e.g., open ocean, continental shelf, nearshore) to refine their location within a fishery management council region (Table 3-7).
Table 3-7: Biogenic Habitats in Fishery Management Council Area and Their Essential Fish Habitat Synonyms
Habitats Descriptor
Vegetated Shores Mangrove Submerged Rooted Seagrass beds Vegetation Beds Attached Macroalgae Beds Reefs Coral reefs Notes: The habitats listed may or may not be represented in the available Geographic Information System data.
3.2.3.1 Vegetated Shores Vegetated shorelines are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens that grow above the water line (Cowardin et al. 1979). This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years. These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants. All water regimes are included except subtidal and irregularly exposed. Vegetated shorelines in the Study Area are formed by mangrove plant species.
Mangroves are a group of woody plants that have adapted to brackish water environments in the tropics and subtropics (Ruwa 1996). Mangroves provide critical ecosystem services in their role as primary producers, including contributions to the decomposition of matter (Bouillon 2009), sediment stabilization (Ruwa 1996), nursery habitat (Mitsch et al. 2009), and providers of habitat for commercially important species (e.g., fish, shrimp, and crabs) (Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008; Hogarth 1999). Nearshore fisheries associated with mangroves are generally more productive than those not associated with mangroves due to the nutrient storage in the plants and the physical complexity of the habitat that mangroves provide for fish and their prey (Ruwa 1996).
Mangroves provide important nursery habitat for many species of fish and invertebrates. Conservation of mangrove habitats is important due to the use of these areas as nurseries for commercial fish species and coral reef fish species (Laegdsgaard and Johnson 1995). Additionally, researchers have found that coral reef fish were twice as abundant on reefs adjacent to mangrove forests compared to reefs without mangroves (Roach 2004).
Mangrove forests are native to the Study Area; however, they are only present on the islands of Guam and Saipan (Figure 3-35). The mangroves of Guam are the most extensive and diverse, totaling approximately 170 acres (ac.) (68 hectares [ha]) (Scott 1993); however, a recent Landsat survey
3-62 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
documented only 84.5 ac. (34.2 ha) (Bhattarai and Giri 2011). Guam has 10 species of mangroves, including Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora apiculata, Avicennia marina, Bruguiera gymnorhiz, Lumnitzera littorea, Nypa fructicans, Xylocarpus moluccensis, Heritiera littoralis, Heritiera tiliaceus, and Acrostichum aureum (Guam Department of Agriculture 2005). The mangrove forests on Saipan are dominated by a single species, Bruguiera gymnorhiza.
Figure 3-35: Distribution of Seagrass and Mangrove Communities in the Mariana Islands Training and Testing Study Area: (a) Guam, (b) Apra Harbor, and (c) Tinian and Saipan
3.2.3.2 Submerged Rooted Vegetation Beds Submerged rooted vegetation form “meadows” or “beds” where they dominate the intertidal or shallow subtidal zone of estuarine or nearshore waters (Fonseca et al. 1998). The plants grow in soft bottom substrate receiving 15–22 percent or more of surface light intensity (Fonseca et al. 1998; Kemp et al. 2004) depending on “bio-optical” properties of the water (Biber et al. 2007).
Seagrasses are unique among flowering plants in their ability to grow submerged in shallow marine environments. Except for some species that inhabit the rocky intertidal zone, seagrasses grow in shallow, subtidal, or intertidal sediments, and can extend over a large area to form seagrass beds (Garrison 2004; Phillips and Meñez 1988). They provide suitable nursery habitat for commercially important organisms (e.g., crustaceans, fish, and shellfish) and also are a food source for some protected species (e.g., sea turtles) (Heck et al. 2003). The structure of seagrass beds can prevent coastal erosion, promotes nutrient cycling through the breakdown of detritus (Dawes 1998; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 1998), and improves water quality. Seagrasses also contribute a
3-63 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
high level of primary production to the marine environment, which supports high species diversity and biomass (Spalding et al. 2003).
Seagrass beds are distributed within the Study Area (Figures 3-36 to 3-40). Seagrasses that occur in the coastal areas of the Study Area from the southern Mariana Islands include Enhalus acoroides, Halodule uninervis, and Halophila minor (Tsuda et al. 1977). Both Guam and Saipan have extensive seagrass meadows surrounding the coastlines (National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005), including extensive beds in Agat Bay (including the Agat Unit of the War in the Pacific National Historical Park) (Daniel and Minton 2004), south of Apra Harbor, Agana Bay, and Cocos Lagoon on Guam (Daniel and Minton 2004; Eldredge et al. 1977). According to NOAA satellite surveys, there are no seagrass beds in Apra Harbor (Figure 3-37); however, smaller beds of seagrasses may be present in this area. The NOAA satellite surveys do not show seagrass beds around Tinian (Figure 3-38). However, a literature review provided information that Tinian possesses seagrass beds along the northeastern, eastern, the southwestern, and northwestern coastlines (Kolinski et al. 2001, U.S. Department of the Navy 2003), and that seagrasses were largely absent from Tinian’s north and south coasts (Kolinski et al. 2001). Seagrasses are more scattered on the island of Saipan (Figure 3- 39), with seagrass beds reported along Tanapag Beach (along the northwest coast) and in Puerto Rico Mudflats (northwest shoreline, north of Tanapag Beach) (Scott 1993, Tsuda et al. 1977). There is no record of seagrasses for the islands north of Saipan (Tsuda 2009), which is also documented in the NOAA satellite surveys for FDM (Figure 3-40).
3-64 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-36: Marine Vegetation Surrounding Guam
3-65 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-37: Marine Vegetation in Apra Harbor
3-66 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-38: Marine Vegetation Surrounding Tinian
3-67 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-39: Marine Vegetation Surrounding Saipan
3-68 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-40: Marine Vegetation Surrounding Farallon de Medinilla
3-69 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
3.2.3.3 Attached Macroalgae Beds Attached, non-vascular plants (i.e., macroalgae) form “meadows” or “beds” where they dominate intertidal shores or subtidal bottoms. Green, red, and brown algae represent basic taxonomic groups of macroalgae species, with some species (e.g., kelp, seaweed) growing attached to substrate. As a general rule, algae can grow down to bottom areas receiving 1 percent or more of surface light intensity (Wetzel 2001).
In the Study Area there are 31 species of brown algae (Phaeophyta) (Lobban and Tsuda 2003). Most species are attached to the seafloor in coastal waters, and include species such as Sargassum ilicifolium, Sargassum obtusifolium, and Sargassum polycystum (Lobban and Tsuda 2003). Green algae (Chlorophyta) are found in areas with a wide range of salinity, such as bays and estuaries, and are eaten by various organisms, including zooplankton (small animals that float in the water), snails, and herbivorous fish. In the Study Area, the green algae, Caulerpa racemosa and Caulerpa lentillifera, are harvested for human consumption.
Red alga (Rhodophyta) occurs in coastal waters of the Study Area, primarily in reef environments and intertidal zones. Some species of red algae that occur in the Study Area include Erythrotrichia carnea and Yamadaella caenomyce (Lobban and Tsuda 2003). In the Study Area, the species Gracilaria tsudae had previously been harvested for human consumption until being implicated in the deaths of three individuals in 1991 (Tsuda 2009). Many Rhodophyta species support coral reefs by trapping loose sediments, and cementing coral fragments to provide the base structures for coral growth and a living protective cover (Castro and Huber 2000). Coralline algae secrete calcium carbonate to build a hard shell around its cell walls. There are both encrusting forms, which grow as a crust over hard structures such as rocks and the shells of organisms like clams and snails, and upright forms of coralline algae (Kennedy 2012). Some species of red crustose coralline algae in the Study Area include Hydrolithon onkodes, Lithophyllum pygmaeum, and Pneophyllum conicum (Minton et al. 2009). The percentage cover of red coralline algae is estimated from surveys to be less than 20 percent for Guam and Tinian and increases to approximately 31–50 percent on portions of the southwestern side of Saipan (Minton et al. 2009).
3.2.3.4 Coral Reefs and Communities The Mariana nearshore environment is characterized by extensive coral bottom and coral reef areas. There are fewer reef-building hard coral species and genera in the northern compared to the southern Mariana Islands: 159 species and 43 genera of hard coral species in the northern islands versus 256 species and 56 genera in the southern islands (Randall 2003; Abraham et al. 2004). In general, the coral reefs of the Marianas have a lower coral diversity compared to other reefs in the northwestern Pacific (e.g., Palau, Philippines, Australian Great Barrier Reef, southern Japan, and Marshall Islands) but a higher diversity than the reefs of Hawaii. Corals reported in Guam are typically found on shallow reefs and upper forereefs (or outer portion of the reef, closest to open ocean) at depths less than 245 ft. (74.7 m), and deeper forereef habitats within the photic zone that allows for coral growth (> 245 ft. [> 74.7 m] water depth) (Randall 2003).
Coral Communities and Reefs of Guam On the island of Guam, most northern shorelines are karstic (layer or layers of soluble bedrock, usually carbonate rock such as limestone or dolomite) and bordered by limestone cliffs. In a few areas, the shorelines consist of volcanic substrates. On windward shores, reefs are narrow and have steep forereefs. Narrow reef flats or shallow fringing reefs (approximately 325–3,250 ft. [99.06–990.6 m] wide) are characteristic of leeward and more protected coastlines. Reefs also occur in lagoonal habitats
3-70 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
in Apra Harbor and Cocos Lagoon. Reef organisms also occur on eroded limestone substrates including submerged caves and crevices, and large limestone blocks fallen from shoreline cliffs (Paulay 2003).
Reefs in the southern half of Guam have always been subject to more naturally-occurring sedimentation than in the northern half of the island because of the difference of erosional products (volcanic in the south versus limestone in the north) (Richmond and Davis 2002). Coral cover and diversity are currently higher on reefs located along the northeastern coast of Guam (Richmond and Davis 2002). Historical surveys suggest that diversity was actually higher in the south before anthropogenic impacts severely impacted those reefs. The National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS)/NOAA (2005) survey of shallow water benthic habitats of Guam determined that the overall coral cover around Guam ranged from 10 to 90 percent. Most of the reefs surrounding Guam have a coral cover ranging from 10 to 50 percent. NCCOS/NOAA (2005) delineates four of the areas of Guam where coral cover ranges from 50 to 90 percent: an area off Mergagan Point on the northeastern end of the island, an area off Pagat Point on the eastern side of the island, an area immediately south of Togacha Bay also on the eastern side of the island, and Apra Harbor.
The reefs near populated areas of Guam, Saipan, Tinian, and Rota receive most of the human impacts from coastal development, population growth, fishing, and tourism. These threats can result in coral death from coastal runoff (Downs et al. 2009), reduced growth rates caused by a decrease in the pH of the ocean from pollution (Cohen et al. 2009), reduced tolerance to global climate change (Carilli et al. 2010), and increased susceptibility to bleaching (which are often tied to atypically high sea temperatures [Brown 1997; Glynn 1993; van Oppen and Lough 2009]). Human-made noise may impact coral larvae by masking the natural sounds that serve as cues to orient them towards suitable settlement sites (Vermeij et al. 2010).
Exposure to runoff from land from development projects can also affect local reef communities. Erosion rates in the Ugum Watershed on Guam doubled from 1975 to 1993 as a result of road construction and development projects. The discharge of cleaning chemicals has also occurred, with subsequent impacts on local coral populations (Wilkinson 2002). Exposure to oil runoff from land, and natural seepage is another threat to marine invertebrates. Additional information on the biology, life history, and conservation of marine invertebrates (ESA-listed species, species of concern, and candidate species) can be found on the website maintained by the NMFS.
Apart from a few exceptions, coral reefs in the Pacific Ocean are confined to the warm tropical and subtropical waters between 30° N and 30° S. Over 400 scleractinian (stony corals) and hydrozoan coral species (hydrocorals), representing 22 families and 108 genera, have been identified from Guam and the Mariana Islands (Randall 2003). Of this total number, 377 are scleractinian species that occur within 20 families and 99 genera, and 26 are hydrozoan species that occur within 2 families and 9 genera. About 70 percent of the coral fauna (281 species) contain zooxanthellae in their tissues and about 30 percent (122 species) are azooxanthellate, although several genera contain both azooxanthellate and zooxanthellae species (Randall 2003). Azooxanthellate corals obtain energy from detritus, zooplankton, and nekton they capture from the surrounding water. Since azooxanthellate corals do not depend on sunlight or a symbiotic existence with zooxanthellae, they can be found in deeper waters (National Marine Fisheries Service 2010).
Deep-sea coral communities are prevalent throughout the Mariana Islands chain, and often form offshore reefs. Much like shallow-water corals, deep-sea corals are fragile, slow growing, and can survive for hundreds of years. In the Mariana Islands, gorgonians, while occurring at all depths, are the
3-71 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
most commonly found corals in deep-sea communities. Gorgonian diversity and abundance increase below 30 m (98.4 ft.), especially in steep, cavernous, and current-swept areas, so that about 20 species are known between 30 and 60 m (98.4 and 196.9 ft.) (Pauley et al. 2003). Several of the gorgonian species listed have been encountered at diving depths only in caverns along the southern Orote Peninsula of Guam, especially the Blue Hole; these species are otherwise restricted to deeper water. In contrast, the much richer deep-water fauna remains poorly known. Gorgonians, the soft coral genera Siphonogorgia and Dendronephthya, and black corals become much more diverse and abundant below 60 m (196.9 ft.). Dredging and tangle net surveys (Eldredge 2003) have already revealed about 70 species of arborescent octocorals at 60–400 m (196.9–1,312.3 ft.) and many others surely remain to be collected.
There is evidence that overall coral reef habitat has declined in the Study Area, and this is used as a proxy for population decline in many species. Natural and human-induced disturbances affecting the reefs of Guam have caused a significant decline of coral cover and recruitment since the 1960s (Richmond 1994). Coral cover on many fore reef slopes on Guam has decreased from over 50 percent to less than 25 percent (Birkeland 1997). There are several reefs of Guam where coral cover remains high, including Apra Harbor, Agat Bay, Orote Ecological Reserve Area, and Haputo Ecological Reserve Area.
Species that are particularly susceptible to bleaching, disease, and other threats are more susceptible to further decline; therefore, population decline is based on both the percentage of destroyed reefs and the percentage of critical reefs that are likely to be destroyed within 20 years (Wilkinson 2004).
Because of its depth (51 m), the Apra Harbor lagoon is unique to the MIRC Study Area (Paulay et al. 1997). It provides habitat for unique and diverse benthic fauna: for example, most of the sponges and ascidians (sea squirt) found in Apra Harbor—48 species of sponges and 52 species of ascidians—are unique to Apra Harbor. Some of the species (1 sponge and 16 ascidians) were introduced via ship traffic. Indigenous species generally occupy natural substrates while introduced and cryptogenic species (species whose origins cannot be verified) generally occupy artificial substrata (e.g., wharf walls, concrete revetments, moorings, and navigational buoys) (Paulay et al. 1997). Corals are found in the Outer Apra Harbor where they thrive on shoals and fringing reefs. Detailed surveys and benthic habitat maps for specific locations within Apra Harbor were produced for an environmental assessment (Department of the Navy 2007), and are depicted in Figures 3-41 to 3-44.
Porites rus is the dominant coral species on the shoals in the center of the harbor outside Sasa Bay (Western Shoals, Jade Shoals, and Middle Shoals) (Figures 3-41 and 3-42). Other coral species associated with these shoals include Porites lobata, P. annae, P. cylindrica, Millepora dichotoma, Acropora formosa, and P. damicornis (Paulay et al. 1997). Coral cover on the shoals range from 50 to 90 percent (Paulay 2003).
Along the southern boundary of Apra Harbor between Orote Point and Gabgab Beach including east and west of ammunition pier or “Kilo Wharf,” coral cover on fringing reefs is high (Figure 3-43). These areas support high coral cover (close to 100 percent cover) consisting mainly of P. rus (> 90 percent of the cover) and other stony corals including P. lichen, P. lobata, Platygyra pini, Leptoseris spp., Lobophyllia corymbosa, and Acanthastrea echinata (Smith 2004). Reefs located further in the harbor (excluding the Inner Apra Harbor) have been severely impacted by freshwater runoff, sedimentation, and polluted discharges (Richmond and Davis 2002). Corals in the Inner Apra Harbor (including P. rus and P. damicornis) encrust sheet pilings, rocks, and concrete debris (Smith 2007).
3-72 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
In Inner Apra Harbor, corals occur in Abo Cove and the inner portion of the entrance channel to the Inner Apra Harbor (Department of the Navy 2005, U.S. Naval Base Guam 2013). In the entrance channel to the Inner Apra Harbor, corals consist of P. rus and P. cylindrica (Department of the Navy 2005). Corals are also found on sheet piles in the entrance channel of the Inner Apra Harbor and the outer reaches of the Inner Apra Harbor (Smith 2007).
Figure 3-41: Benthic Habitats of the Sasa Bay
3-73 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-42: Benthic Habitats of San Luis Beach
3-74 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-43: Benthic Habitats of Kilo Wharf
3-75 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-44: Benthic Habitats of Glass Breakwater
Coral Communities and Reefs of Tinian Barrier reefs, fringing reefs, and a broad shelf area (1,000 m wide) are found off the Tinian Harbor. The largest amount of coral cover is probably found along the outer edges of the reef (fore reef and terrace) (Starmer et al. 2002). Fringing and fore reefs (less than 200 m wide) occur immediately next to the western shoreline of Tinian. Corals are found on the fore reef and insular shelf seaward of the fore reef.
From Unai Masalok to Puntan Masalok, no fringing reefs are found. Furthermore, there are no fringing reefs from Puntan Masalok to Puntan Carolinas (southernmost point of Tinian). Fringing reefs reoccur past Puntan Carolinas. NCCOS/NOAA (2005) determined that the overall coral cover around Tinian ranged from 10 to 50 percent (Figure 3-45).
3-76 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-45: Coral Coverage Surrounding Tinian
3-77 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Coral cover ranges from 14 to 59 percent on coral reefs at Kammer Beach and Two Coral Head, respectively (Quinn and Kojis 2003). Dominant coral species in terms of cover are Goniastrea retiformis at Kammer Beach, and P. rus at Two Coral Head. Coral cover is much higher at Two Coral Head compared to Kammer Beach due to fewer coral predator-resistant species (Quinn and Kojis 2003).
Unai Chulu, Unai Babui, and Unai Dankulo are three beach areas and nearshore reefs within the MIRC Study Area that have been evaluated for amphibious landing activities (Marine Research Consultants 1999). Unai Chulu and Unai Babui are located on the northwestern side of Tinian and Unai Dankulo on the east side of the island, north of Puntan Masalok. At Unai Chulu, within 20 m seaward of the shoreline, the reef flat substrate includes sand, rubble, and outcrops of a fossil reef. Live cover in the inner reef flat is mostly composed of turf algae. The few coral species of the genus Porites located in this area of the reef form circular, flattopped, and lobate colonies. In the middle of the reef flat, echinoids have bioeroded the reef substrate, and corals (small branching and encrusting colonies) are more abundant when compared to the inner reef flat. The fringing reef is exposed to wave action, resulting in few coral colonies. Seaward of the fringing reef, the reef front forms a spur-and-groove system (alternating channels and ridges that are perpendicular to the fringing reef). Spurs are 1–2 m wide and the grooves are approximately 5 m wide. Abundant coral cover was observed within the spurs. Seaward of the spur-and-groove system is a deep reef front terrace. The reef morphology off Unai Babui is similar to that of Unai Chulu except that the spur-and-groove system was more developed at Unai Babui. Surveys from 2008 found that overall taxa at Unai Babui was 4.3 times higher on the reef slope than the reef flat, with corals accounting for most of the observed difference (Minton et al. 2009). The surveys also found that the taxa richness at Unai Chulu and Unai Dangkolo were higher on the reef slope than the reef flat. Unai Dangkolo reef flat had the highest coral density of all of the reefs surveyed in the study (Minton et al. 2009).
A fringing reef borders the Unai Dankulo white carbonate beach (National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005). Macroalgae (10–50 percent cover) populate the reef flat. Corals (10–50 percent cover) are a main constituent of the fore reef and insular shelf (National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005). Surveys conducted in 1994, however, report that the inner reef flat supports an extensive (50–70 percent coral cover) and diverse reef community (25 coral species). On the reef front, there is a spur- and-groove system down to a depth of 10 m, seaward of which the benthos is comprised of carbonate pavement. Both the spur-and-groove system and the fore reef pavement are densely populated by corals (36 species of corals). The recent benthic habitat mapping of the CNMI by NCCOS/NOAA (2005) reflects the change in reef flat composition. Since NCCOS/NOAA (2005) show relatively abundant coral cover on the reef front, the fore reef has possibly retained some of its pre-typhoon, pre-December 1997 characteristics. The impacts of corallivorous predators have most likely altered the coral composition and cover on the fore reef (Quinn and Kojis 2003).
Coral Communities and Reefs of Farallon de Medinilla In contrast with the other southern Mariana Islands, FDM does not include fringing or fore reefs. Rather, it has a relatively wide insular shelf (400–1,800 m wide) that supports limited coral cover along all sides except the western side of the island (National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2005) (Figure 3-46). In 2004, 81 species of corals were observed on reefs at FDM (Department of the Navy 2005). Overall, the northwestern nearshore area (eroded submerged cliff face and reef terrace) of the island supports the highest diversity of marine invertebrates and fishes on FDM (Department of the Navy 2005). Most of the coastline of FDM is bordered by steep karstic cliffs which for the most part extend 6–9 m below the waterline (Department
3-78 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
of the Navy 2005). Cliffs on the western shoreline extend more than 20 m below the waterline. There are numerous underwater caves along the FDM shoreline. Boulders dislodged from the cliffs border the base of the cliffs. Seaward of the cliff face is a reef terrace that is 30–50 m wide and 10–25 m deep beyond which is a sandy slope zone. On parts of the western side of the island, a vertical wall undercut by caves and ledges delimits the seaward edge of the reef terrace and intersects with the sandy slope habitat. At the southern end of the island, a 2 m deep “finger reef” extends 200 m southward. The edges of the finger reef are vertical walls that drop down to a 30 m depth. The reef terrace consists of a spur-and-groove system on the eastern (windward) side of the island where the island forms an isthmus separating the lower narrow third of the island from the wider upper two-thirds of the island (Department of the Navy 2005).
Near the cliff edge on the reef terrace of the eastern side of FDM, there is estimated to be less than 5 percent coral cover (Department of the Navy 2005). Further offshore, there is estimated to be 10–20 percent coral cover composed of encrusting Porites and head coral forming Pocillopora. Coral cover on the boulders is estimated to be 25–30 percent and comprised of Pocillopora, Porites, Montipora, and Millepora. Coral cover on the ridges of the spur-and-groove system off the island isthmus on the windward side ranges is estimated to be from 15 to 25 percent, and is composed of Porites and Pocillopora. There are large aggregations of the long-spined urchin Echinotrix diadema (hundreds to thousands of individuals) seen both on the eastern and western sides of the island, and high coral cover is found on boulders along the reef terrace on the leeward side of the island (50–70 percent, mostly Pocillopora coral heads). Most of the branching colonies of Pocillopora sp. on the leeward side have broken branches (Department of the Navy 2005).
Since 1971, FDM has been a target site for live-fire military exercises (ship-to-shore gunfire, aerial gunnery and bombing) (Smith et al. 2013). The majority of the ordnance found underwater at FDM during reef assessments conducted since 1999 occur at the northwestern end of the island (Smith et al. 2013). Some ordnance is imbedded in the seafloor suggesting a miss and other appears to have rolled off the island; however, in both cases, no damage to the health of the coral reef ecosystem has been observed (Smith et al. 2013).
Assessments of the near shore marine and fisheries resources at FDM have been conducted between 1999 and 2012. The surveys conducted through 2004 were performed by a Navy contract biologist, with assistance from a NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and CNMI representative. Support was also provided by Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel. All surveys since 2004 have been performed by Navy marine ecologists, with support from Navy EOD personnel. Based upon the observations from the surveys, fish stocks around FDM are robust and healthy (Smith et al. 2013). In fact, based upon subjective estimates of size, total numbers and health, the fish stocks around FDM are probably among the best in the entire archipelago. Sea turtle sightings have remained relatively constant between 1999 and 2012; both green sea turtles and hawksbill turtles have been regularly sighted. During the 2004 survey, it was noted that many of the corals with branching or plating type growth forms sustained significant breakage. Some members of the 2004 survey team suggested this could be the result of bombing/training activities. However, based upon observations at other locations, bombing levels in previous and subsequent years, plus observations made during the 2005, 2006, and 2007 surveys, it is clear that the damage observed in 2004 was a result of a direct hit on FDM by Typhoon Ting Ting shortly before the 2004 survey was conducted (Department of the Navy 2004). This site showed complete recovery by the 2010 survey (Smith et al. 2013). In conclusion, the near shore marine natural resources at FDM are thriving; the island in fact, is serving as a de-facto preserve due to the restricted fishing access (see Riegl et al. 2008 for comparable results at Vieques, Puerto Rico).
3-79 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 3-46: Coral Communities Surrounding Farallon de Medinilla
3-80 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS The overall approach to analysis in this EFHA included the following general steps:
1. Identification of habitats designated as EFH and HAPCs for analysis 2. Analysis of habitat-specific impacts for individual stressors 3. Analysis of habitat-specific impacts for combined stressors 4. Consideration of mitigations to reduce any potential impacts
Navy training and testing activities in the Proposed Action may produce one or more stimuli that cause stress on a habitat designated as EFH. Each proposed Navy activity was examined to determine its potential stressors (Table 4-1). Not all stressors affect every habitat, nor do all proposed Navy activities produce stressors (Table 4-2). The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action were analyzed based on the presence of these potential stressors within the designated habitat.
First, a preliminary analysis was conducted to determine the habitats designated as EFH that could be potentially impacted and their associated stressors. The term stressor is broadly used in this document to refer to an agent, condition, or other stimulus that causes stress to an organism or alters physical, socioeconomic, or cultural resources. Secondly, each resource was analyzed for potential impacts from individual stressors, followed by an analysis of the combined impacts of all stressors related to the Proposed Action. Mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
In this phased approach, the initial analyses were used to develop each subsequent step so the analysis focused on relevant issues that warranted the most attention. The systematic nature of this approach allowed the Proposed Action with the associated stressors and potential impacts to be effectively tracked throughout the process. This approach provides a comprehensive analysis of applicable stressors and potential impacts. Each step is described in more detail below.
4.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Section 2.4 (Description of the Action Area) could impact EFH and HAPC in the Fishery Management Council region of the Study Area. A stressor is analyzed for a designated habitat if it has the potential to alter the quality or quantity of that habitat (e.g., water column, benthic habitat). The stressors that could potentially impact one or more EFH and HAPCs in the Study Area are shown in Table 4-1.
4-1 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 4-1: List of Stressors Analyzed
Components and Stressor Categories for Essential Fish Habitat Acoustic Stressors Sonar and other active acoustic sources Vessel noise Explosives Swimmer defense airguns Weapons firing, launch, and impact noise Energy Stressors Electromagnetic devices Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors Vessels In-water devices Military expended materials Seafloor devices Contaminant Stressors Explosives, explosive byproducts, unexploded ordnance Metals Chemicals other than explosives Other Materials
The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and location within the Study Area. The data available for these parameters are limited to what is presented in Section 2.4 (Description of the Action Area). The specific analysis of the training and testing activities considers the stressor “footprints” and their coincidence with designated EFH and HAPCs within the Fishery Management Council boundaries. The duration of impacts is based on either the duration of stressor or recovery of the habitat:
• Temporary – stressor duration or recovery in hours, days, or weeks • Short Term – stressor duration or recovery in less than 3 years • Long Term – stressor duration or recovery in more than 3 years but less than 20 years • Permanent – stressor duration or recovery in more than 20 years
Minimal effects could be those that are limited in duration and that allow the affected area to recover before measurable long-term or permanent impacts to EFH occur, or those that may result in relatively small and insignificant long-term or permanent impacts to EFH and its ecological functions.
The conclusions for spatial and temporal impacts on EFH and HAPCs are encapsulated in text boxes at the end of the training and testing activities sections under each substressor. The managed species life stages that could be impacted are listed by habitat descriptors in Appendix B. The analysis will be separated by: (1) potential impacts on the biological components of the water column, (2) potential impacts on benthic substrate, and (3) potential impacts on biogenic habitats. Because HAPCs are subsets of the specific management unit EFH (see Table 3-1), impacts to the water column, benthic substrate, and biogenic habitats, also cover impacts to HAPC. If an impact to a specific HAPC is anticipated that is not covered in the analysis, then a separate analysis and conclusion will be conducted. Physical impacts to the water column habitat are analyzed in the contaminant stressor analysis.
4-2 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 4-2: Stressors by Warfare and Testing Area
Physical Acoustic Energy Contaminant Warfare Area/Testing Area Disturbance and Stressors Stressors Stressors Strike Stressors Training Activities Anti-Air Warfare Amphibious Warfare Strike Warfare Anti-Surface Warfare Anti-Submarine Warfare Electronic Warfare Mine Warfare Naval Special Warfare Major Training Events Other Training Activities Testing Activities Anti-Surface Warfare Anti-Submarine Warfare Shipboard Protection Systems and Swimmer Defense Testing New Ship Construction Life Cycle Activities Office of Naval Research Testing
4.1.1 ACOUSTIC STRESSORS This section analyzes the potential impacts of acoustic stressors on EFH and HAPCs resulting from training and testing activities within the Study Area. Acoustic sources were divided into two categories, impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds feature a very rapid increase to high pressures, followed by a rapid return to static pressure. For both non-impulsive and impulsive stressors, water column EFH and HAPC within the Study Area may be temporarily impacted through an increase in the ambient sound levels. While the level of ambient sound in the water column will return to normal immediately following the completion of the training or testing exercise, thus resulting in only a temporary impact to water column EFH, federally managed fish and invertebrate species may be affected during this period within the vicinity of the stressor as a result of this brief alteration of the ambient noise level.
The analysis of the potential effects to fish and invertebrates as a result of impacts to the water column habitats designated as EFH is limited to physical injury or mortality within the immediate vicinity of where the stressor may occur. Hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, and behavioral reactions to impulsive stressors beyond the range of physical impacts are assumed but not quantified, and are included with the physical impacts. If there is no physical injury or mortality anticipated, the impact on water column EFH is assessed qualitatively. The qualitative assessment of hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, and behavioral reactions is based on the hearing and vocalization capacities of fish and invertebrates.
Impulsive sounds are often produced by processes involving a rapid release of energy or mechanical impacts (Hamernik and Hsueh 1991). Explosions and airgun impulses are examples of impulsive sound
4-3 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
sources. Non-impulsive sounds lack the rapid rise time and can have durations longer than those of impulsive sounds. Sonar pings and underwater transponders are examples of non-impulsive sound sources. The terms “impulsive” and “non-impulsive” were selected for use because they were deemed more technically accurate and less confusing than the terms “explosive” and “acoustic” used in previous documentation.
Fish Hearing and Vocalization All fish have two sensory systems to detect sound in the water: the inner ear, which functions very much like the inner ear in other vertebrates, and the lateral line, which consists of a series of receptors along the fish’s body (Popper and Schilt 2008). The inner ear generally detects relatively higher-frequency sounds, while the lateral line detects water motion relative to the fish at low frequencies (below a few hundred Hertz) (Hastings and Popper 2005). Although hearing capability data only exist for fewer than 100 of the 32,000 fish species, current data suggest that most species of fish detect sounds from 50 to 1,000 Hertz (Hz), with few fish hearing sounds above 4 kHz (Popper 2008). It is believed that most fish have their best hearing sensitivity from 100 to 400 Hz (Popper 2003). Additionally, some clupeids (shad in the subfamily Alosinae) possess ultrasonic hearing (i.e., able to detect sounds above 100,000 Hz) (Astrup 1999).
The inner ears of fish are directly sensitive to acoustic particle motion rather than acoustic pressure. Although a propagating sound wave contains both pressure and particle motion components, particle motion is most significant at low frequencies (less than a few hundred Hertz) and closer to the sound source. However, a fish’s gas-filled swim bladder can enhance sound detection by converting acoustic pressure into localized particle motion, which may then be detected by the inner ear. Fish with swim bladders generally have more sensitive and higher-frequency hearing than fish without swim bladders (Popper and Fay 2010). Some fish also have specialized structures such as small gas bubbles or gas-filled projections that terminate near the inner ear. These fish have been called “hearing specialists,” while fish that do not possess specialized structures have been referred to as “generalists” (Popper et al. 2003). In reality many fish species possess a continuum of anatomical specializations that may enhance their sensitivity to pressure (versus particle motion), and thus higher frequencies and lower intensities (Popper and Fay 2010).
Past studies indicated that hearing specializations in marine fish were quite rare (Amoser and Ladich 2005). However, more recent studies show there are more fish species than originally investigated by researchers, such as deep-sea fish, that may have evolved structural adaptations to enhance hearing capabilities (Buran et al. 2005; Deng et al. 2011). Marine fish families Holocentridae (squirrelfish and soldierfish), Pomacentridae (damselfish), Gadidae (cod, hakes, and grenadiers), and Sciaenidae (drums, weakfish, and croakers) have some members that can potentially hear sound up to a few kilohertz. There is also evidence, based on the structure of the ear and the relationship between the ear and the swim bladder, that at least some deep-sea species, including myctophids, may have hearing specializations and thus be able to hear higher frequencies (Deng et al. 2011; Popper 1977; Popper 1980), although it has not been possible to do actual measures of hearing on these fish from great depths.
Several species of reef fish tested show sensitivity to higher frequencies (i.e., over 1,000 Hz). The hearing of the shoulderbar soldierfish (Myripristis kuntee) has an auditory range extending toward 3 kHz (Coombs and Popper 1979), while other species tested in this family have been demonstrated to lack this higher frequency hearing ability (e.g., Hawaiian squirrelfish [Adioryx xantherythrus] and saber
4-4 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
squirrelfish [Sargocentron spiniferum]). Some damselfish can hear frequencies of up to 2 kHz, but with best sensitivity well below 1 kHz (Egner and Mann 2005; Kenyon 1996; Wright et al. 2005, 2007).
Sciaenid research by Ramcharitar et al. (2006) investigated the hearing sensitivity of weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Weakfish were found to detect frequencies up to 2 kHz. The sciaenid with the greatest hearing sensitivity discovered thus far is the silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura), which has responded to sounds up to 4 kHz (Ramcharitar et al. 2004). Other species tested in the family Sciaenidae have been demonstrated to lack this higher frequency sensitivity.
It is possible that the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua, Family: Gadidae) is also able to detect high-frequency sounds (Astrup and Mohl 1993). However, in Astrup and Mohl’s (1993) study it is feasible that the cod was detecting the stimulus using touch receptors that were overdriven by very intense fish-finding sonar emissions (Astrup 1999; Ladich and Popper 2004). Nevertheless, Astrup and Mohl (1993) indicated that cod have high frequency thresholds of up to 38 kHz at 185–200 dB referenced to (re) 1 micropascal (µPa), which likely only allows for detection of odontocete’s clicks at distances no greater than 33–98 ft. (10–30 m) (Astrup 1999).
Experiments on several species of the Clupeidae (e.g., herrings, shads, and menhadens) have obtained responses to frequencies between 40 and 180 kHz (Astrup 1999); however, not all clupeid species tested have demonstrated this very-high-frequency hearing. Mann et al. (1998) reported that the American shad can detect sounds from 0.1 to 180 kHz with two regions of best sensitivity: one from 0.2 to 0.8 kHz, and the other from 25 to 150 kHz. This shad species has relatively high thresholds (about 145 dB re 1 µPa), which should enable the fish to detect odontocete clicks at distances up to about 656 ft. (200 m) (Mann et al. 1997). Likewise, other members of the subfamily Alosinae, including alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), and Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus), have upper hearing thresholds exceeding 100–120 kHz. In contrast, the Clupeidae bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), scaled sardine (Harengula jaguana), and Spanish sardine (Sardinella aurita) did not respond to frequencies over 4 kHz (Gregory and Clabburn 2003; Mann et al. 2001). Mann et al. (2005) found hearing thresholds of 0.1–5 kHz for Pacific herring (Clupyea pallasii).
Two other groups to consider are the jawless fish (Superclass: Agnatha – lamprey) and the cartilaginous fish (Class: Chondrichthyes – the sharks, rays, and chimeras). While there are some lampreys in the marine environment, virtually nothing is known about their hearing capability. They do have ears, but these are relatively primitive compared to the ears of other vertebrates, and it is unknown whether they can detect sound (Popper and Hoxter 1987). While there have been some studies on the hearing of cartilaginous fish, these have not been extensive. However, available data suggest detection of sounds from 20 to 1,000 Hz, with best sensitivity at lower ranges (Casper et al. 2003; Casper and Mann 2006; Casper and Mann 2009; Myrberg 2001). It is likely that elasmobranchs only detect low-frequency sounds because they lack a swim bladder or other pressure detector.
Most of the other marine species investigated to date lack higher-frequency hearing (i.e., greater than 1,000 Hz). This notably includes sturgeon species tested to date that could detect sound up to 400 or 500 Hz (Lovell et al. 2005) and Atlantic salmon that could detect sound up to about 500 Hz (Hawkins and Johnstone 1978; Kane et al. 2010).
Bony fish can produce sounds in a number of ways and use them for a number of behavioral functions (Ladich 2008). Over 30 families of fish are known to use vocalizations in aggressive interactions, whereas over 20 families are known to use vocalizations in mating (Ladich 2008). Sound generated by fish as a
4-5 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
means of communication is generally below 500 Hz (Slabbekoorn et al. 2010). The air in the swim bladder is vibrated by the sound-producing structures (often muscles that are integral to the swim bladder wall) and radiates sound into the water (Zelick et al. 1999). Sprague and Luczkovich (2004) calculated that silver perch can produce drumming sounds ranging from 128 to 135 dB re 1 µPa. Female midshipman fish apparently use the auditory sense to detect and locate vocalizing males during the breeding season (Sisneros and Bass 2003).
Invertebrate Hearing and Vocalization Very little is known about sound detection and use of sound by aquatic invertebrates (Budelmann 1992a, b; Montgomery et al. 2006; Popper et al. 2001). Organisms may detect sound by sensing either the particle motion or pressure component of sound, or both. Aquatic invertebrates probably do not detect pressure since many are generally the same density as water and few, if any, have air cavities that would function like the fish swim bladder in responding to pressure (Budelmann 1992b; Popper et al. 2001). Many aquatic invertebrates, however, have ciliated “hair” cells that may be sensitive to water movements, such as those caused by currents or water particle motion very close to a sound source (Budelmann 1992a, b; Mackie and Singla 2003). This may allow sensing of nearby prey or predators or help with local navigation.
Aquatic invertebrates that can sense local water movements with ciliated cells include cnidarians, flatworms, segmented worms, urochordates (tunicates), mollusks, and arthropods (Budelmann 1992a, b; Popper et al. 2001). The sensory capabilities of corals and coral larvae are largely limited to detecting water movement using receptors on their tentacles (Gochfeld 2004) and exterior cilia (Vermeij et al. 2010). Some aquatic invertebrates have specialized organs called statocysts for determination of equilibrium and, in some cases, linear or angular acceleration. Statocysts allow an animal to sense movement and may enable some species, such as cephalopods and crustaceans, to be sensitive to water particle movements associated with sound (Hu et al. 2009; Kaifu et al. 2008; Montgomery et al. 2006; Popper et al. 2001). Because any acoustic sensory capabilities, if present at all, are limited to detecting water motion, and water particle motion near a sound source falls off rapidly with distance, aquatic invertebrates are probably limited to detecting nearby sound sources rather than sound caused by pressure waves from distant sources.
Both behavioral and auditory brainstem response studies suggest that crustaceans may sense sounds up to 3 kHz, but best sensitivity is likely below 200 Hz (Goodall et al. 1990; Lovell et al. 2005; Lovell et al. 2006). Most cephalopods (e.g., octopus and squid) likely sense low-frequency sound below 1,000 Hz, with best sensitivities at lower frequencies (Budelmann 1992b; Mooney et al. 2010; Packard et al. 1990). A few may sense higher frequencies up to 1,500 Hz (Hu et al. 2009). Squid did not respond to toothed whale ultrasonic echolocation clicks at sound pressure levels (SPLs) ranging from 199 to 226 dB re 1 μPa, likely because these clicks were outside of squid hearing range (Wilson et al. 2007). However, squid exhibited alarm responses when exposed to broadband sound from an approaching seismic airgun with received levels exceeding 145–150 dB re 1 micropascal squared second (μPa2-s) root mean square (McCauley et al. 2000).
Aquatic invertebrates may produce and use sound in territorial behavior, to deter predators, to find a mate, and to pursue courtship (Popper et al. 2001). Some crustaceans produce sound by rubbing or closing hard body parts together, such as lobsters and snapping shrimp (Au and Banks 1998; Latha et al. 2005; Patek and Caldwell 2006). The snapping shrimp chorus makes up a significant portion of the ambient noise budget in many locales (Au and Banks 1998; Cato and Bell 1992). Each click is up to 215 dB re 1 µPa, with a peak around 2–5 kHz (Au and Banks 1998; Heberholz and Schmitz 2001). Other
4-6 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
crustaceans make low-frequency rasping or rumbling noises, perhaps used in defense or territorial display, that are often obscured by ambient noise (Patek and Caldwell 2006; Patek et al. 2009).
Reef noises, such as fish pops and grunts, sea urchin grazing (around 1.0–1.2 kHz), and snapping shrimp noises (around 5 kHz) (Radford et al. 2010), may be used as a cue by some aquatic invertebrates. Nearby reef noises were observed to affect movements and settlement behavior of coral and crab larvae (Jeffs et al. 2003; Radford et al. 2007; Stanley et al. 2010; Vermeij et al. 2010). Larvae of other crustacean species, including pelagic and nocturnally emergent species that benefit from avoiding predators associated with coral reefs, appear to avoid reef noises (Simpson et al. 2011). Detection of reef noises is likely limited to short distances (less than 330 ft. [100 m]) (Vermeij et al. 2010).
4.1.1.1 Non-Impulsive Stressors Sonar and other non-impulsive sound sources (e.g., vessel noise) emit sound waves into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, transiting, and communicate. This section analyzes the potential impacts of these acoustic sources on EFH and HAPC resulting from training and testing activities within the Study Area. Unlike explosives and other impulsive stressors, only water column EFH and HAPC within the Study Area may be temporarily impacted by non-impulsive sound effects. The analysis of impacts on the water column environment for fish and invertebrates is limited to physical injury or mortality where those impacts may occur. Hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, and behavioral reactions to impulsive stressors beyond the range of physical impacts are assumed but not quantified, and are included with the physical impacts. If there is no physical injury or mortality anticipated, the impact on water column EFH is assessed qualitatively.
4.1.1.1.1 Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources Most active systems operate within specific frequencies although some harmonic frequencies may be emitted at lower SPLs. Sonar use associated with ASW would emit the most non-impulsive sound underwater during training and testing activities. Sonar use associated with MIW would also contribute a notable portion of overall non-impulsive sound. Other sources of non-impulsive noise include acoustic communications and other sound sources used in testing. General categories of sonar systems are described in Section 2.2.1 (Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources). The hours of usage of each acoustic source class proposed are shown in Table 4-3.
Underwater sound propagation is highly dependent upon environmental characteristics such as bathymetry, bottom type, water depth, temperature, and salinity. The sound received at a particular location will be different than near the source due to the interaction of many factors, including propagation loss; how the sound is reflected, refracted, or scattered; the potential for reverberation; and interference due to multi-path propagation.
4-7 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 4-3: Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Source Classes for the Proposed Action (Annual Hours or Number of Items)
Annual Annual Source Use Source Use Source Class Source for Training for Testing Description Category Class (hours (hours except as except as noted) noted) Airguns (AG) Used during swimmer Up to 60 in.3 airguns AG* 0 308 defense and diver (e.g., Sercel Mini-G) deterrent activities Anti-Submarine Mid-frequency Deep Water Active ASW1 0 144 Warfare (ASW) Distributed System (DWADS) Tactical sources used Mid-frequency Multistatic Active during anti-submarine ASW2* Coherent sonobuoy (e.g., 160 500 warfare training and AN/SSQ-125) testing activities Mid-frequency towed active acoustic ASW3 countermeasure systems (e.g., 3,574 361 AN/SLQ-25) Mid-frequency expendable active ASW4* acoustic device countermeasures (e.g., 11 0 MK 3) Low-Frequency (LF) Low-frequency sources equal to LF4 0 123 Sources that produce 180 dB and up to 200 dB signals less than 1 kHz Low-frequency sources less than LF5 0 11 180 dB Low-frequency sonars currently in development (e.g., anti-submarine LF6 0 40 warfare sonars associated with the Littoral Combat Ship) High-Frequency (HF) Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., HF1 100 13 and Very High- AN/BQQ-10)
Frequency (VHF): Mine detection, classification, and HF4 716 344 Tactical and non- neutralization sonar (e.g., AN/SQS-20) tactical sources that Active sources (greater than 200 dB) produce signals HF5 0 336 greater than 10 kHz not otherwise binned but less than 180 kHz Active sources (equal to 180 dB and up HF6 1,036 137 to 200 dB) not otherwise binned Mid-Frequency (MF) Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., MF1 1,856 16 Tactical and non- AN/SQS-53C and AN/SQS-60) tactical sources that Hull-mounted surface ship sonars (e.g., MF2 596 29 produce signals from 1 AN/SQS-56) to 10 kHz Hull-mounted submarine sonars (e.g., MF3 191 1 AN/BQQ-10)
4-8 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 4-3: Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Source Classes for the Proposed Action (Annual Hours or Number of Items) (continued)
Annual Annual Source Use Source Use Source Class Source for Training for Testing Description Category Class (hours (hours except as except as noted) noted) Helicopter-deployed dipping sonars Mid-Frequency (MF) MF4 144 70 Tactical and non- (e.g., AN/AQS-22 and AN/AQS-13) tactical sources that Active acoustic sonobuoys (e.g., MF5* 1,908 680 produce signals from 1 DICASS) to 10 kHz Active underwater sound signal (continued) MF6* 0 33 devices (e.g., MK 84) Active sources (greater than 200 dB) MF8 0 123 not otherwise binned Active sources (equal to 180 dB and MF9 0 47 up to 200 dB) not otherwise binned Active sources (greater than 160 dB, MF10 but less than 180 dB) not otherwise 0 231 binned Hull-mounted surface ship sonars MF11 with an active duty cycle greater than 308 16 80% High duty cycle – variable depth MF12 472 184 sonar Acoustic Modems (M) Transmit data Mid-frequency acoustic modems M3 0 112 acoustically through the (greater than 190 dB) water Swimmer Detection High-frequency sources with short Sonar (SD) Used to pulse lengths, used for the detection SD1 0 2,341 detect divers and of swimmers and other objects for the submerged swimmers purpose of port security.
Torpedoes (TORP) Lightweight torpedo (e.g., MK 46, MK TORP1* 11 104 Source classes 54, or Surface Ship Defense System) associated with active acoustic signals TORP2* Heavyweight torpedo (e.g., MK 48) 50 12 produced by torpedoes * These sources are measured by items, not hours. Notes: dB = decibels, DICASS = Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy, in.3 = cubic inches, kHz = kilohertz
A very simple estimate of sonar transmission loss can be calculated using the spherical spreading law, TL = 20 log10r, where r is the distance from the sound source and TL is the transmission loss in decibels. While a simple example is provided here for illustration, the Navy Acoustic Effects Model takes into account the influence of multiple factors to predict acoustic propagation (U.S. Department of the Navy 2012). The simplified estimate of spreading loss for a ping from a hull-mounted tactical sonar with a representative source level of 235 dB re 1 µPa is shown in Figure 4-1. The figure shows that sound levels drop off significantly near the source, followed by a more steady reduction with distance. Most non-impulsive sound sources used during training and testing have sound source levels lower than this example.
4-9 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 4-1: Estimate of Spreading Loss for a 235 Decibels Referenced to 1 Micropascal Sound Source Assuming Simple Spherical Spreading Loss
Most use of active acoustic sources involves a single unit or several units (ship, submarine, aircraft, or other platform) employing a single active sonar source in addition to sound sources used for communication, navigation, and measuring oceanographic conditions. Anti-submarine warfare activities may also use an acoustic target or an acoustic decoy.
Anti-Submarine Warfare Sonar Systems Sonar used in ASW are deployed on many platforms and are operated in various ways. Anti-submarine warfare active sonar is usually mid-frequency (1–10 kHz) because mid-frequency sound balances sufficient resolution to identify targets and distance within which threats can be identified.
• Ship tactical hull-mounted sonar contributes the largest portion of overall non-impulsive sound. Duty cycle can vary from about a ping per minute to continuously active. Sonar can be wide-ranging in a search mode or highly directional in a track mode. • A submarine‘s mission revolves around its stealth; therefore, a submarine’s mid-frequency sonar is used infrequently because its use would also reveal a submarine’s location. • Aircraft-deployed, mid-frequency, ASW systems include omnidirectional dipping sonar (deployed by helicopters) and omnidirectional sonobuoys (deployed from various aircraft), which have a typical duty cycle of several pings per minute. • Acoustic decoys that continuously emulate broadband vessel sound or other vessel acoustic signatures may be deployed by ships and submarines. • Torpedoes use directional high-frequency sonar when approaching and locking onto a target. Practice targets emulate the sound signatures of submarines or repeat received signals.
Anti-submarine warfare activities for all platforms typically would occur within and adjacent to existing OPAREAs beyond 3 nm, with the exception of sonar dipping activities conducted by helicopters closer to shore. In addition, hull-mounted sonars may occasionally be used in port during system maintenance
4-10 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
and testing. Most ASW activities involving submarines or submarine targets would occur in waters greater than 600 ft. (183 m) deep due to safety concerns about running aground at shallower depths.
Most events usually occur over a limited area and are completed in less than 1 day, often within a few hours. Multi-day ASW events requiring coordination of movement and effort between multiple platforms with active sonar over a larger area occur less often, but constitute a large portion of the overall non-impulsive underwater noise that would be produced by Navy activities.
Mine Warfare Sonar Systems Sonar used to locate mines and other small objects is typically high frequency, which provides higher resolution. Mine detection sonar is deployed at variable depths on moving platforms to sweep a suspected mined area (towed by ships, helicopters, or unmanned underwater vehicles). Mid-frequency hull-mounted sonar can also be used in an object detection mode known as “Kingfisher” mode. Mine detection sonar use would be concentrated in areas where practice mines are deployed, typically in water depths less than 200 ft. (61 m). Most events usually occur over a limited area and are completed in less than 1 day, often within a few hours.
Other Active Acoustic Sources Active sound sources used for navigation and obtaining oceanographic information (e.g., depth, bathymetry, and speed) are typically directional, have high duty cycles, and cover a wide range of frequencies, from mid frequency to very high frequency. These sources are similar to the navigation systems on standard large commercial and oceanographic vessels. Sound sources used in communications are typically high frequency or very high frequency. These sound sources could be used by vessels during most activities and while transiting throughout the Study Area.
Potential Impacts on Biological Components of the Water Column Sonar and other active acoustic sources would not disturb the substrate, but they could affect the pelagic water column as a habitat for fish and invertebrates. Potential impacts on the water column habitat from active acoustic sources would mainly include impacts on species occupying the water column and their prey, including fish and invertebrates. These impacts could include injury or death, hearing loss, auditory masking, and physiological stress or behavioral reactions for those species.
Potential direct injuries from non-impulsive sound sources, such as sonar, are unlikely because of the relatively lower peak pressures and slower rise times than potentially injurious sources such as explosives. Non-impulsive sources also lack the strong shock wave such as that associated with an explosion. Therefore, direct injury is not likely to occur from exposure to non-impulsive sources such as sonar, or subsonic aircraft noise for the reasons discussed below. The theories of sonar-induced acoustic resonance, bubble formation, neurotrauma, and lateral line system injury were studied under experimental conditions.
Two reports examined the effects of mid-frequency sonar-like signals (1.5–6.5 kHz) on larval and juvenile fish of several species (Jørgensen et al. 2005; Kvadsheim and Sevaldsen 2005). In the first study, Kvadsheim and Sevaldsen (2005) showed that intense sonar activities in herring spawning areas affected less than 0.3 percent of the total juvenile stock. The second study, Jørgensen et al. (2005) exposed larval and juvenile fish to various sounds in order to investigate potential effects on survival, development, and behavior. The study used herring (Clupea harengus) (standard lengths 2–5 cm), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) (standard length 2 and 6 cm), saithe (Pollachius virens) (4 cm), and spotted wolffish (Anarhichas minor) (4 cm) at different developmental stages. The researchers placed the fish in plastic bags 10 ft.
4-11 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
(3 m) from the sound source and exposed them to between four and 100 pulses of 1-second duration of pure tones at 1.5, 4, and 6.5 kHz. The fish in only two groups out of the 82 tested exhibited any adverse effects. These two groups were both composed of herring, a hearing specialist, and were tested with SPLs of 189 dB re 1 µPa, which resulted in a post-exposure mortality of 20–30 percent. In the remaining 80 tests, there were no observed effects on behavior, growth (length and weight), or the survival of fish that were kept as long as 34 days post exposure. While statistically significant losses were documented in the two groups impacted, the researchers only tested that particular sound level once, so it is not known if this increased mortality was due to the level of the test signal or to other unknown factors.
High SPLs may cause bubbles to form from micronuclei in the blood stream or other tissues of animals, possibly causing embolism damage (Ketten 1998). Fish have small capillaries where these bubbles could be caught and lead to the rupturing of the capillaries and internal bleeding. It has also been speculated that this phenomena could also take place in the eyes of fish due to potentially high gas saturation within the fish’s eye tissues (Popper and Hastings 2009).
As reviewed in Popper and Hastings (2009), Hastings (1990; 1995) found ‘acoustic stunning’ (loss of consciousness) in blue gouramis (Trichogaster trichopterus) following an 8-minute exposure to a 150 Hz pure tone with a peak SPL of 198 dB re 1 µPa. This species of fish has an air bubble in the mouth cavity directly adjacent to the animal’s braincase that may have caused this injury. Hastings (1990; 1995) also found that goldfish exposed to 2 hours of continuous wave sound at 250 Hz with peak pressures of 204 dB re 1 µPa, and fathead minnows exposed to 0.5 hour of 150 Hz continuous wave sound at a peak level of 198 dB re 1 µPa did not survive.
The only study on the effect of exposure of the lateral line system to continuous wave sound (conducted on one freshwater species) suggests no effect on these sensory cells by intense pure tone signals (Hastings et al. 1996).
The most familiar effect of exposure to high-intensity sound is hearing loss, meaning an increase in the hearing threshold. This phenomenon is called a noise-induced threshold shift, or simply a threshold shift (Miller 1974). A temporary threshold shift (TTS) is a temporary, recoverable loss of hearing sensitivity over a small range of frequencies related to the sound source to which the fish was exposed. A TTS may last several minutes to several weeks and the duration is related to the intensity of the sound source and the duration of the sound (including multiple exposures). A permanent threshold shift (PTS) is non-recoverable, results from the destruction of tissues within the auditory system, and can occur over a small range of frequencies related to the sound exposure. As with TTS, the animal does not become deaf but requires a louder sound stimulus (relative to the amount of PTS) to detect a sound within the affected frequencies; however, in this case, the affect is permanent.
Permanent hearing loss has yet to be documented in fish. The sensory hair cells of the inner ear in fish can regenerate after they are damaged, unlike in mammals where sensory hair cell loss is permanent (Lombarte and Popper 1994; Smith et al. 2006). As a consequence, any hearing loss in fish may be as temporary as the timeframe required to repair or replace the sensory cells that were damaged or destroyed (Smith et al. 2006).
While some marine fish may be able to detect mid-frequency sounds, most marine fish are hearing generalists and have their best hearing sensitivity below mid-frequency sonar. Behavioral responses, if they occur, would be brief, and unlikely to have any substantial costs. Kvadsheim and Sevaldsen (2005) reported no behavioral reaction of herrings to low- and mid-frequency sonar. Sustained auditory
4-12 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
damage is not expected. Sensitive life stages (juvenile fish, larvae, and eggs) very close to the sonar source may experience injury or mortality, but area-wide effects would likely be minor. For these reasons, the use of mid-frequency sonar would not significantly affect fish or invertebrate populations.
Doksæter et al. (2009) investigated the potential behavioral effects of sonar on Atlantic herring (a clupeid). The reactions of free-swimming herring to sonar transmissions at 1–2 kHz and 6–7 kHz were compared with the playback of recorded killer whale (Orcinus orca) feeding sounds. Received SPLs for the lower frequency range were 127–197 dB re 1 µPa, and for the higher range were 139–209 dB re 1 µPa. The killer whale feeding sounds ranged from approximately 800 Hz to 20 kHz and source levels of 150–160 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m. The reactions of the herring, which were generally located between 10 and 50 m in the water column, were monitored by two upward-looking echosounders. No vertical or horizontal fleeing reactions to the sonar transmissions were observed as the vessels passed multiple times over the stock of herring. By contrast, the killer whale feeding sounds induced both vertical and horizontal fleeing reactions in the herring. The authors concluded that the operation of sonar resulted in no effect on the behavior of the herring stock; therefore, there would be no large-scale adverse effects to the herring stock.
Since high-frequency sound attenuates quickly in the water, high levels of sound would be restricted to areas near the source. Most species would probably not hear these sounds and would therefore experience no disturbance; even for fish able to hear sound at high frequencies, only short-term exposure would occur, and effects would be transitory and of little biological consequence. Although some species may be able to produce sound at higher frequencies (greater than 1 kHz), vocal marine fish largely communicate below the range of mid-frequency levels used by most sonars. Further, most marine fish species are not expected to be able to detect sounds in the mid-frequency range of the operational sonars. The fish species that are known to detect mid-frequencies (including most clupeids) do not have their best sensitivities in the range of the operational sonars. Thus, these fish can only hear mid-frequency sounds when sonars are operating at high energy levels or the fish are in proximity to the sonars. Considering the low-frequency detection of most marine species and the limited time of exposure due to the moving sound sources, most mid-frequency active sonar used in the Study Area would not have the potential to substantially mask key environmental sounds.
While not likely for mid-frequency active sonars, the low-frequency active sonars may have a greater ability to mask biologically important sounds due to their operational frequency range coinciding with range detectable and use for communication by most marine fish species. However, low-frequency active usage is rare and most low-frequency active operations are conducted in deeper waters. The majority of fish species, including those that are the most highly vocal, exist on the continental shelf and within nearshore, estuarine areas. Fish within a few tens of kilometers around low-frequency active sonar could experience brief periods of masking while the system is used, with effects most pronounced closer to the source. However, overall effects would be temporary and infrequent.
Exposure of many fish species to sonars and other acoustic sources has the potential to result in stress to the animal and may also elicit alterations in normal behavior patterns (e.g., swimming, feeding, resting, spawning, etc.). Such impacts may have the potential to affect the long-term growth and survival of an individual. However, due to the temporary and infrequent nature of sonar use in the Study Area, the resulting stress on fish is not likely to impact the health of resident populations, because behavioral changes are not expected to have lasting effects on the survival, growth, or reproduction of fish species.
4-13 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
In summary, sonar use could affect prey species (including fish and invertebrates) by masking ecologically important sounds, inducing stress, altering behaviors, or changing hearing thresholds which could affect water column habitat. Hearing specialists are more likely to be impacted than generalists due to their ability to detect both low- and mid-frequency sounds. However, any such effects would be temporary and infrequent as a vessel operating mid-frequency sonar transits an area. There is no information available to suggest that exposure to non-impulsive acoustic sources results in mortality.
Training Activities Training activities involving the use of sonar could occur in multiple locations including offshore waters, inland waters such as Inner Apra Harbor, and while pierside. The annual hours of sonar and other active acoustic sources from Navy training activities are listed in Table 4-3.
Training activities involving the use of non-impulsive acoustic stressors may reduce the quality of water column EFH and HAPC through the increase in ambient noise levels. This potential reduction would be localized to the area of the training activity and be only temporary in duration. The quality of the water column as EFH and HAPC would be restored to normal levels immediately following the completion of the training activities. There is no anticipated effect of non-impulsive acoustic sources, including sonar, on benthic substrates and biogenic habitats designated as EFH or on HAPCs.
Testing Activities Testing activities involving the use of sonar could occur in multiple locations including offshore waters, inland waters such as bays, and while pierside. The annual hours of sonar and other active acoustic sources from Navy testing activities are listed in Table 4-3.
Testing events involving the use of non-impulsive acoustic stressors may reduce the quality of water column EFH and HAPC through the increase in ambient noise levels. This potential reduction would be localized to the area of the testing event and be only temporary in duration. The quality of the water column as EFH and HAPC would be restored to normal levels immediately following the completion of the testing events. There is no anticipated effect of non-impulsive acoustic sources, including sonar, on benthic substrates and biogenic habitats designated as EFH or on HAPCs.
4.1.1.1.2 Vessel Noise Naval vessels would produce low-frequency, broadband underwater sound. In the EEZ, Navy ships are estimated to contribute roughly 1 percent of the total energy due to large vessel broadband noise (Mintz and Filadelfo 2011; Mintz and Parker 2006).
Vessel movements involve transit to and from ports to various locations within the Study Area, and many ongoing and proposed training and testing activities within the Study Area involve maneuvers by various types of surface ships, boats, and submarines (collectively referred to as vessels). Operations involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a few hours up to 2 weeks. Additionally, a variety of smaller craft will be operated within the Study Area.
Potential impacts on the water column habitat from vessel movements would mainly include impacts on prey species, including fish and invertebrates. Vessel movements have the potential to expose fish and invertebrates to sound and general disturbance, which could result in short-term behavioral or physiological responses (e.g., avoidance, stress, increased heart rate). While vessel movements have the potential to expose fish and invertebrates occupying the water column to sound and general disturbance, potentially resulting in short-term behavioral or physiological responses, such responses
4-14 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
would not be expected to compromise the general health or condition of individual fish or populations of invertebrates.
Based on the information above, water column EFH and HAPC would not be adversely affected by the vessel noise generated from Navy training and testing activities. There is no anticipated effect of vessel noise, on benthic substrates and biogenic habitats designated as EFH or on HAPCs.
4.1.1.2 Impulsive Stressors Underwater explosions, swimmer defense airguns, and weapons firing noise all produce a rapid pressure rise and high peak pressure (see relevant section below for supporting details). This section analyzes the potential impacts of these explosive and impulsive sources on EFH and HAPC resulting from training and testing activities within the Study Area. Unlike non-impulsive stressors, all habitats within the Study Area may be physically impacted by impulsive sound effects. The analysis of impacts on the water column environment presented below is limited to physical injury or mortality for prey species, such as fish and invertebrates. Section 4.1.1.1 (Non-Impulsive Stressors) describes the non-lethal impacts of sound on fish and invertebrates.
4.1.1.2.1 Explosives Explosive detonations are associated with high-explosive ordnance, including bombs, missiles, torpedoes, and naval gun shells; mines and charges; explosive sonobuoys; anti-swimmer grenades, and ship shock trial charges. Most explosive detonations during training and testing would be at or below the water surface, although charges associated with mine neutralization could occur near the ocean bottom. While most detonations would occur in waters greater than 200 ft. (61 m) in depth, mine neutralization events would typically occur in shallower waters (less than 200 ft. [61 m]). Training and testing activities using explosions generally would not occur within 3 nm of shore, with the exception of civilian port defense and designated underwater detonation areas in nearshore waters.
In general, explosive events would consist of a single explosion or multiple explosions over a short period. During training, all large, high-explosive bombs would be detonated near the surface over deep water. Bombs with high-explosive ordnance would be fused to detonate on contact with the water, and it is estimated that 99 percent of them would explode within 5 ft. of the ocean surface (U.S. Department of the Navy 2005). Table 4-4 shows parameters of some ordnance detonated during training and testing activities.
4-15 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 4-4: Representative Ordnance, Net Explosive Weights, and Detonation Depths
Ordnance Net Explosive Weight (lb.) Detonation Depth M3A2 anti-swimmer concussion grenades 0.5 At or just below water’s surface 76-millimeter round 2 1 ft. (0.3 m) Sonobuoy charge 5 Throughout the water column Airborne mine neutralization system 5 Subsurface (AMNS) charges Hellfire AGM 114 rocket 8 At or just below water’s surface 5 in. Naval gunfire 8 1 ft. (0.3 m) Underwater mine neutralization charges 20 Throughout the water column Maverick missile 100 At or just below water’s surface MK-20 bomb 110 2–3 ft. (0.6–0.9 m) MK-82 bomb 192 2–3 ft. (0.6–0.9 m) MK-83 bomb 416 2–3 ft. (0.6–0.9 m) Explosive ordnance detonation (EOD) 5, 10, 75, 600 Throughout the water column charges MK-48 torpedo 650 Subsurface MK-84 bomb 945 2–3 ft. (0.6–0.9 m) Notes: ft. = foot/feet, m = meter(s), lb. = pound(s)
Underwater explosions create a cavity filled with high-pressure gas, which pushes the water out against the opposing external hydrostatic pressure. At the instant of explosion, a certain amount of gas is instantaneously generated at high pressure and temperature, creating a bubble. In addition, the heat causes a certain amount of water to vaporize, adding to the volume of the bubble. This action immediately begins to force the water in contact with the blast front in an outward direction. This intense pressure wave, called a “shock wave,” passes into the surrounding medium and travels faster than the speed of sound. Noise associated with the blast is also transmitted into the surrounding medium as acoustic waves. As the pressure waves generated by the explosion travel, they will interact with the surface and seafloor, lose energy, and be perceived as acoustic waves.
The detonation depth of an explosive is important because of the propagation effect known as surface- image interference. For sources located near the sea surface, a distinct interference pattern arises from reflection from the water's surface. As the source depth or the source frequency decreases, these two paths increasingly, destructively interfere with each other, reaching total cancellation at the surface (barring surface reflection scattering loss). Since most explosive sources used in military activities are munitions that detonate essentially upon impact, the effective source depths are quite shallow and, therefore, the surface-image interference effect can be pronounced.
Potential Impacts on the Physical Components of the Water Column An explosion detonated near the surface would not disturb the substrate, but the shock wave could affect the pelagic water column as a habitat for fish and invertebrates. The expanding gases can set up a pulsating bubble whose recurring pressure waves also may contribute significantly to damage. Many animals, especially smaller animals, are unlikely to survive if they are present in the region of bulk cavitation. Cavitation occurs when shock waves, which are generated by the underwater detonation of an explosive charge, propagate to the surface and are reflected back into the water as rarefaction (or negative pressure) waves. These rarefaction waves cause a state of tension to occur within a large region of water. Since water cannot ordinarily sustain a significant amount of tension, it cavitates and the surrounding pressure drops to the vapor pressure of water. The region in which this occurs is known
4-16 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
as the cavitation region, and includes all water cavitating at any time after the detonation of the explosive charge. The upper and lower boundaries form what is referred to as the cavitation envelope (U.S. Department of the Navy 2008). A water hammer pulse is generated when the upper and lower layers of the cavitation region rejoin (close).
Concern about potential fish mortality associated with the use of at-sea explosives led military researchers to develop mathematical and computer models that predict safe ranges for fish and other animals from explosions of various sizes (Goertner 1982; Goertner et al. 1994; Yelverton et al. 1975). Young (1991) provides equations that allow estimation of the potential effect of underwater explosions on fish possessing swim bladders using a damage prediction method developed by Goertner (1982). Young’s parameters include the size of the fish and its location relative to the explosive source, but are independent of environmental conditions (e.g., depth of fish and explosive shot frequency). An example of such model predictions is shown in Table 4-5, which lists estimated explosive-effects ranges using Young’s (1991) method for fish possessing swim bladders exposed to explosions that would typically occur during training exercises. The 10 percent mortality range is the distance beyond which 90 percent of the fish present would be expected to survive. It is difficult to predict the range of more subtle effects causing injury but not mortality (Continental Shelf Associates Inc. 2004).
Table 4-5: Estimated Explosive Effects Ranges for Fish with Swim Bladders
Training Operation and Type Depth of 10% Mortality Range (ft.) NEW (lb.) of Ordnance Explosion (ft.) 1 oz. Fish 1 lb. Fish 30 lb. Fish Mine Neutralization MK-103 Charge 0.002 10 40 28 18 AMNS Charge 3.24 20 366 255 164 20 lb. NEW UNDET Charge 20 30 666 464 299 Missile Exercise Hellfire 8 3.3 317 221 142 Maverick 100 3.3 643 449 288 Firing Exercise with IMPASS HE Naval Gun Shell, 5-inch 8 1 244 170 109 Bombing Exercise MK-20 109.7 3.3 660 460 296 MK-82 192.2 3.3 772 539 346 MK-83 415.8 3.3 959 668 430 MK-84 945 3.3 1,206 841 541 Notes: ft. = foot/feet, HE = high explosive, IMPASS = Integrated Maritime Portable Acoustic Scoring and Simulation, lb. = pound(s), NEW = Net Explosive Weight, oz. = ounce, UNDET = Underwater Detonation
Fish not killed or driven from a location by an explosion might change their behavior, feeding pattern, or distribution. Changes in behavior of fish have been observed as a result of sound produced by explosives, with effect intensified in areas of hard substrate (Wright 1982). Fish which ascend too quickly, a typical response to fear or to avoid negative stimuli, might experience an increase in the volume of gas-filled organs due to the reduction in ambient pressure. The resulting inflation might render the fish unable to immediately return to its normal habitat depth because the expanded organs make the buoyancy of the fish too great to overcome by swimming downward. Stunning from pressure waves could also temporarily immobilize fish, making them more susceptible to predation.
4-17 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
The few studies of marine invertebrates (crustaceans and mollusks) exposed to explosions show a range of impacts, from mortality close to the source to no observable effects. Limited studies of crustaceans have examined mortality rates at various distances from detonations in shallow water (Aplin 1947; Chesapeake Biological Laboratory 1948; Gaspin et al. 1976). Similar studies of mollusks have shown them to be more resistant than crustaceans to explosive impacts (Chesapeake Biological Laboratory 1948; Gaspin et al. 1976). Other invertebrates found in association with mollusks, such as sea anemones, polychaete worms, isopods, and amphipods, were observed to be undamaged in areas near detonations (Gaspin et al. 1976). Using data from these experiments, Young (1991) developed curves that estimate the distance from an explosion beyond which at least 90 percent of certain marine invertebrates would survive, depending on the weight of the explosive (Figure 4-2). In deeper waters where most detonations would occur near the water surface, most benthic marine invertebrates would be beyond the 90 percent survivability ranges shown above, even for larger explosives (up to source class E12 [601–1,000 lb. NEW]).
Source: Young 1991 Figure 4-2: Prediction of Distance to 10 Percent Mortality of Marine Invertebrates Exposed to an Underwater Explosion
The number of fish or invertebrates affected by an underwater explosion would depend on the population density in the vicinity of the blast, as well as factors discussed above such as NEW, depth of the explosion, and fish size. For example, if an explosion occurred in the middle of a dense school of menhaden, herring, or other schooling fish, a large number of fish could be killed. Individually, such explosions represent minimal mortality in terms of the total population of such fish in the Study Area. The cumulative effect of multiple explosions over a period of time could have greater than minimal impacts on fish or invertebrate populations, but this is very difficult to quantify without density and biomass estimates of fish within the impact footprint.
The worst case scenario for explosive impacts on fish and invertebrates in the water column is based on information from Table 4-4 (representative explosive munitions), Table 4-5 (10 percent mortality range for 30 lb. (13.6 kg) fish, and Figure 4-2 (10 percent mortality range for crab). The range to less than 10
4-18 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
percent mortality is very similar for both a 30 lb. (13.6 kg) fish and a shrimp. The total impact area assumes no overlap in footprints, which is unlikely considering the point of targets in training and testing activities (e.g., hit the target). Such calculations provide one of the variables necessary in determining the level impact. A determination of population level impacts requires more information on the density and biomass of managed species and life-stages in the Study Area than is currently available.
Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrates and Biogenic Habitats Mine neutralization training and underwater demolition qualification/certification activities would involve explosions on or near the seafloor, which could affect benthic substrates and biogenic habitats. Table 4-6 lists training and testing activities that include seafloor explosions, along with the location of the activity and the associated explosives charges. Primarily soft-bottom habitat would be utilized for underwater detonations. Cobble, rocky reef, and other hard bottom habitat may be scattered throughout the area, but those areas would be avoided during training to the maximum extent practicable.
Table 4-6: Training and Testing Activities that Include Seafloor Explosions
Explosive Underwater Activity Charge (lb. Location 1 Detonations NEW ) Training Mine Neutralization (Explosive 1–20 lb. 20 MIRC mine neutralization sites Ordnance Disposal) Underwater Demolition 1–20 lb. 30 MIRC underwater demolition sites Qualification/ Certification Testing
MCM Mission 1–20 lb. 24 Study Area Package Testing
1 NEW is the actual weight in pounds of explosive mixtures or compounds Notes: NEW = Net Explosive Weight, lb. = pound(s), MIRC = Mariana Islands Range Complex, MCM = Mine Countermeasure Exercise
The determination of effect for training and testing activities on the seafloor is based on the largest net- weight charge for each training activity which is 20 lb. (9.1 kg) NEW explosions. Explosions produce high energies that would be partially absorbed and partially reflected by the seafloor. Hard bottoms would mostly reflect the energy (Berglind, et al. 2009), whereas a crater would be formed in soft bottom (Gorodilov & Sukhotin 1996). The area and depth of the crater would vary according to depth, bottom composition, and size of the explosive charge. The relationship between crater size and depth of water is non-linear, with relatively small crater sizes in the shallowest water, followed by a spike in size at some intermediate depth, and a decline to an average flat-line at greater depth (Gorodilov & Sukhotin 1996; O'Keeffe & Young 1984).
In general, training and testing activities that include seafloor detonations occur in water depths ranging from 6 ft. (1.8 m) to about 100 ft. (30 m). Based on Gorodilov & Sukhotin (1996), the depth (h) and radius (R) of a crater from an underwater explosion over soft bottom is calculated using the charge
4-19 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
4 radius (r0) multiplied by a number determined by solving for h or R along a non-linear relationship between [depth of water/r0] and [h or R/r0]. The area of impacted substrate for each 20 lb. (9.1 kg) underwater explosion on the seafloor would be approximately 366 ft.2 (34 m2). The radii of craters are expected to vary little among unconsolidated sediment types. On sediment types with non-adhesive particles (everything except clay), the impacts should be temporary as these areas should recover; craters in clay may persist for years (O'Keeffe and Young 1984). The production of craters in soft bottom could uncover subsurface hard bottom, altering marine substrate types.
Hard substrates reflect more energy from bottom detonations than do soft bottoms (Keevin and Hempen 1997). The amount of consolidated substrate (i.e., bedrock) converted to unconsolidated sediment by surface explosions varies according to material types and degree of consolidation (i.e., rubble, bedrock). Because of a lack of accurate and specific information on hard bottom types, the impacted area is assumed to be equal to the area of soft bottom impacted. Potential exists for fracturing and damage to hard-bottom habitat if underwater detonations occur over that type of habitat.
Training Activities Under the Proposed Action, an estimated 50 underwater explosions per year would occur on or near the seafloor within the Study Area, as identified in Table 4-6. Underwater explosions near the seafloor would occur in the MIRC mine neutralization sites. Underwater explosives placed on or near the seafloor would range from 1 to 20 lb. (0.4 to 9.1 kg) NEW. Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show the mine neutralization sites in relation to vegetation and coral coverage.
Detonations on the seafloor would result in approximately 18,300 ft.2 (1,700 m2) of disturbed benthic habitat per year in the Study Area (Table 4-7). Underwater explosions near the seafloor would primarily occur in the nearshore portions of the Study Area (see Figure 2-3) at appropriate mine counter measure training sites. Training activities that include bottom-laid underwater explosions are infrequent (only about 50 explosions per year), and are likely to occur in the same general area. Additionally, the designated mine counter measure training sites mainly consist of soft bottom substrates that are expected to recover to their previous structure. The effects of training activities that use underwater explosives on any hard substrate are determined to be permanent although individually minimal throughout the Study Area, and in areas where habitat data are available (e.g., Apra Harbor). There are no known hard substrates in the mine neutralization area.
4 Pounds per cubic inches of TNT (1.64 grams/cubic centimeters) x number of pounds, then solving for radius in the geometry of a spherical volume
4-20 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 4-3: Mine Neutralization and Beach Landing Sites in Relation to Marine Vegetation
4-21 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 4-4: Mine Neutralization Sites and Beach Landing Sites in Relation to Coral
4-22 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 4-7: Bottom Detonations for Training and Testing Activities under Proposed Action
Impact Net Explosive 2 Number of Total Impact Activity 1 Footprint ft. 2 2 Weight (lb.) 2 Charges Area ft. (m ) (m ) Training Mine Neutralization (Explosive 20 366 (34) 20 7,320 (680) Ordnance Disposal [EOD]) Underwater Demolition 20 366 (34) 30 10,980 (1,020) Qualification/Certification Total - - 50 18,300 (1,700) Testing Mine Countermeasure Mission 5 145 (13) 24 3,480(310) Package Testing Activities Total - - 24 3,480(310) 1 Analysis assumes the largest charge, in terms of net explosive weight, for the training activity. Notes: lb. = pounds, ft.2 = square feet, m2 = square meters
Training activities that include bottom-laid underwater explosions are infrequent (only about 50 explosions per year), and are likely to occur in the same general area, which are mainly soft bottom habitats. The recovery for habitats in areas of repeated detonations would be expected to be prolonged. The effects of training activities that use underwater explosives on any hard substrate are determined to be permanent although individually minimal throughout the Study Area, and in areas where habitat data are available (e.g., Apra Harbor). There are no known hard substrates in the mine neutralization area. Therefore, the effects on soft bottom substrate are determined to be short term, individually and cumulatively minimal.
Training activities using explosives that could potentially affect water column EFH and HAPC would be conducted throughout the Study Area. The activity areas for training and testing activities are shown in Figure 2-1, and the impact footprints presented in Table 4-8 represents the zone of greater than 10 percent mortality of shrimp or 30 lb. fish (refer to Section 4.1.1.2.1, Explosives, for details on methods).
If all the explosives listed in Table 4-8 were detonated such that their mortality zone did not overlap (very unlikely), the sum of potential temporary impacts per year on offshore water column EFH and HAPC could be as much as 19,320 m3 impacted. This would be a small percentage of the total available water column EFH available in the Study Area. Following the detonations, the water column EFH and HAPC would be expected to return to its previous condition.
4-23 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 4-8: Explosions in the Water Column from Training Activities (Excluding Explosion on or near the Bottom), and Their Impact on Water Column Essential Fish Habitat
Training Explosive Category Number of Explosions Impact Footprint (m2)1 E1 (0.1 lb.–0.25 lb. NEW) 8,100 2,555 E2 (> 0.26 lb.–0.5 lb. NEW) 106 42 E3 (> 0.5 lb.–2.5 lb. NEW) 380 258 E4 (> 2.5 lb.–5 lb. NEW) 156 134 E5 (> 5 lb.–10 lb. NEW) 684 738 E6 (> 10 lb.–20 lb. NEW) 60 82 E7 (> 20 lb.–60 lb. NEW) 0 20 E8 (> 60 lb.–100 lb. NEW) 12 28 E9 (> 100 lb.–250 lb. NEW) 4 13 E10 (> 250 lb.–500 lb. NEW) 8 32 E11 (> 500 lb.–650 lb. NEW) 2 9 E12 (> 650 lb.–1,000 lb. NEW) 184 920
E13 (> 1,000 lb.–1,740 lb. NEW) 0 0 1 The impact footprint represents the zone of less than 10 percent mortality of shrimp or 30 lb. (14-kilogram) fish; largest NEW of the explosives category was used in the calculations. Notes: NEW = Net Explosive Weight, lb. = pound(s), m2 = square meter(s)
Given the small amount of water column habitat affected using a very unlikely worst case scenario, and the quick recovery time, the effects of underwater explosives on water column EFH and HAPC is determined to be temporary, and individually and cumulatively minimal throughout the Study Area.
Testing Activities Under the Proposed Action, there would be 24 underwater detonations (explosive neutralizers) used during mine countermeasure mission package testing activities. The maximum NEW of each detonation would be 5 lb., which could impact an area of 145 ft.2 (13.5 m2). Underwater explosions associated with testing activities would disturb approximately 3,480 ft.2 (323.3 m2) per year of substrate in the Study Area.
Testing activities that include bottom-laid underwater explosions are infrequent (only about 24 explosions per year), and the percentage of area affected is small (less than 1 percent of the total Study Area). Soft bottom substrates of disturbed areas would be expected to recover their previous structure, with the fastest recovery occurring in areas with high waves and tidal energies. The recovery for habitats in areas of repeated detonations would be expected to be slightly longer than those areas with high waves and tidal energies. The effects of testing activities with underwater explosives on any hard substrate are determined to be permanent although individually minimal throughout the Study Area, and in areas where habitat data are available (e.g., Apra Harbor). Therefore, underwater explosions would be limited to local and short-term impacts on benthic habitat in the Study Area.
4-24 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Testing activities that include bottom-laid underwater explosions are infrequent (only about 24 explosions per year), and the percentage of the Study Area affected is small (less than 1 percent of the total Study Area). Additionally, detonations are likely to occur in the same general area, which would further decrease the total area affected. The recovery for habitats in areas of repeated detonations would be expected to be prolonged. The effects of testing activities with underwater explosives on any hard substrate are determined to be permanent although individually minimal throughout the Study Area). The effects on soft bottom substrate are determined to be short term, individually and cumulatively minimal.
Testing activities using explosives that detonate at or near the surface could potentially affect water column EFH and would be conducted throughout the Study Area. The activity areas for testing activities are shown in Figure 2-1, and the impact footprints presented in Table 4-9 represents the zone of greater than 10 percent mortality of shrimp or 30 lb. (14 kg) fish (refer to Section 4.1.1.2.1, Explosives, for details on methods).
If all the munitions listed in Table 4-9 were detonated such that their zone of mortality did not overlap (very unlikely), the sum of potential temporary impacts per year on offshore water column EFH and HAPC, could be as much as 5,776 m3 impacted. This would be a small percentage of the total available water column EFH available in the Study Area. Following the detonations, the water column EFH and HAPC would be expected to return to its previous condition.
Given the small amount of water column habitat affected using a very unlikely worst case scenario, and the quick recovery time, the testing effects of underwater explosives on water column EFH is determined to be temporary, and minimal throughout the Study Area.
4-25 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 4-9: Explosions in the Water Column from Testing Activities (Excluding Explosion on or near the Bottom), and Their Impact on Water Column Essential Fish Habitat
Testing Munitions Category Number of Impact Explosions Footprint (m2)1 E1 (0.1 lb.–0.25 lb. NEW) 2,040 644 E2 (>0.26 lb.–0.5 lb. NEW) 0 0 E3 (>0.5 lb.–2.5 lb. NEW) 553 375 E4 (> 2.5 lb.–5 lb. NEW) 264 226 E5 (> 5 lb.–10 lb. NEW) 0 0 E6 (> 10 lb.–20 lb. NEW) 16 22 E7 (> 20 lb.–60 lb. NEW) 0 0 E8 (> 60 lb.–100 lb. NEW) 4 9 E9 (> 100 lb.–250 lb. NEW) 0 0 E10 (> 250 lb.–500 lb. NEW) 4 160 E11 (> 500 lb.–650 lb. NEW) 4 17 E12 (> 650 lb.–1,000 lb. NEW) 0 0 E13 (> 1,000 lb.–1,740 lb. NEW) 0 0 1 The impact footprint represents the zone of less than 10 percent mortality of shrimp or 30 lb. (14-kilogram) fish, largest NEW of the explosives category was used in the calculations. Notes: NEW = Net Explosive Weight, m2 = square meter(s), lb. = pound(s)
4.1.1.2.2 Swimmer Defense Airguns Swimmer defense airguns would be used for integrated swimmer defense testing at pierside locations. Pierside integrated swimmer defense testing involves a limited number of impulses from a small airgun in Inner Apra Harbor. Airguns would be fired a limited number of times during each activity at an irregular interval as required for the testing objectives.
Underwater impulses would be generated using a small (60-cubic-inch) airgun, which is essentially a stainless steel tube charged with high-pressure air via a compressor. An impulsive sound is generated when the air is almost instantaneously released into the surrounding water, an effect similar to popping a balloon in air. Generated impulses would have short durations, typically a few hundred milliseconds. The root-mean-squared SPL and SPL at a distance 1 m from the airgun would be approximately 200–210 dB re 1 µPa and 185–195 dB re 1 µPa2-s.
Impulses from airguns lack the strong shock wave and rapid pressure increase, as would be expected from explosive sources that can cause primary blast injury or barotraumas to fish and invertebrates. There is little evidence that airguns can cause direct injury to adult fish, with the possible exception of injuring small juvenile, larval fish, or other invertebrates nearby (approximately 16 ft. [4.9 m]). Therefore, small juvenile, larval fish, or other invertebrates within a few meters of the airgun may be injured or killed. In addition, fish that are able to detect the airgun impulses may exhibit alterations in natural behavior.
4-26 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
It is unlikely that swimmer defense airguns would affect biogenic habitats as they would be used only in Navy ports (Inner Apra Harbor), which do not support large areas of biogenic habitat. There would be no anticipated impact from swimmer defense airguns on abiotic habitats, because the pressure wave generated by the airguns would not be strong enough to cause disruptions.
Swimmer defense airguns are not expected to cause direct trauma to marine fish and invertebrates or permanently affect water column EFH or HAPC. Abiotic substrate and associated seagrass or sedentary invertebrate beds should be unaffected because the pressure wave generated by the swimmer defense airgun testing would not be strong enough to disrupt abiotic substrates, would not be used in locations near these habitats, and would only last for a very limited duration.
4.1.1.2.3 Weapons Firing, Launch, and Impact Noise Noise associated with weapons firing and non-explosive impact could happen at any location within the Study Area but generally would occur at locations greater than 12 nm from shore. Testing activities involving weapons firing noise would be those events involved with testing weapons and launch systems. These activities would also take place throughout the Study Area.
The firing of a weapon may have several components of associated noise. Firing of guns could have acoustic effects from sound generated by firing the gun (muzzle blast), vibration from the blast propagating through a ship’s hull, and sonic booms generated by the projectile flying through the air (Table 4-10). Missiles and targets would produce noise during launch. In addition, impact of NEPM can introduce sound into the water.
Table 4-10: Representative Weapons Noise Characteristics
Noise Source Sound Level In-Water Naval Gunfire Muzzle Noise (5 in./54-caliber) Approximately 200 dB re 1 µPa directly under gun muzzle at 5 ft. below water surface Airborne Naval Gunfire Muzzle Noise (5 in./54-caliber) 178 dB re 20 µPa directly below the gun muzzle above the water surface Hellfire Missile Launch from Aircraft 149 dB re 20 µPa at 4.5 m 7.62 mm M-60 Machine Gun 90 dBA re 20 µPa at 50 ft. 0.50-caliber Machine Gun 98 dBA re 20 µPa at 50 ft.
Notes: dB = decibels; dBA = decibels, A-weighted; ft. = feet; µPa = micropascal; re = referenced to; mm = millimeters; in. = inches; m = meters
4.1.1.2.4 Naval Gunfire Noise Firing a ship deck gun produces a muzzle blast in air that propagates away from the muzzle in all directions, including toward the water surface. Most sound enters the water in a narrow cone beneath the sound source (within 13 degrees of vertical). In-water sound levels were measured during the muzzle blast of a 5 in. (12.7 cm) deck-mounted gun, the largest caliber gun currently used in proposed Navy activities. The highest sound level in the water (on average 200 dB re 1 µPa measured 5 ft. below the surface) was obtained when the gun was fired at the lowest angle, placing the blast closest to the water surface (U.S. Department of the Navy 2000; Yagla and Stiegler 2003). The average impulse at that
4-27 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
location was 19.6 Pa-s. The corresponding average peak in-air pressure was 178 dB re 20 µPa, measured at the water surface below the firing point.
Gunfire also sends energy through the ship structure, into the water, and away from the ship. This effect was investigated in conjunction with the measurement of 5 in. (12.7 cm) gun blasts described above. The energy transmitted through the ship to the water for a typical round was about 6 percent of that from the air blast impinging on the water. Therefore, sound transmitted from the gun through the hull into the water is a minimal component of overall weapons firing noise.
The projectile shock wave in air by a shell in flight at supersonic speeds propagates in a cone (generally about 65 degrees) behind the projectile in the direction of fire (Pater 1981). Measurements of a 5 in. (12.7 cm) projectile shock wave ranged from 140 to 147 dB re 20 µPa taken at the surface at 0.59 nm distance from the firing location and 10 degrees off the line of fire for safety (approximately 623 ft. [190 m] from the shell’s trajectory). Sound level intensity decreases with increased distance from the firing location and increased angle from the line of fire (Pater 1981). Like sound from the gun firing blast, sound waves from a projectile in flight would enter the water primarily in a narrow cone beneath the sound source. The region of underwater sound influence from a single traveling shell would be relatively narrow, the duration of sound influence would be brief at any point, and sound level would diminish as the shell gains altitude and loses speed. Multiple, rapid gun firings would occur from a single firing point toward a target area. Vessels participating in gunfire activities would maintain enough forward motion to maintain steerage, normally at speeds of a few knots. Acoustic impacts from weapons firing would often be concentrated in space and duration.
Launch Noise Missiles can be rocket- or jet-propelled. Sound due to missile and target launches is typically at a maximum at initiation of the booster rocket. It rapidly fades as the missile or target reaches optimal thrust conditions and the missile or target reaches a downrange distance where the booster burns out and the sustainer engine continues. Launch noise level for the Hellfire missile, which is launched from aircraft, is about 149 dB re 20 µPa at 14.8 ft. (4.5 m) (U.S. Department of the Army 1999).
Non-Explosive Impact Noise Mines, non-explosive bombs, and intact missiles and targets could impact the water with great force and produce a large impulse and loud noise. Sounds of this type are produced by the kinetic energy transfer of the object with the target surface, and are highly localized to the area of disturbance. McLennan (1997) calculated the sound from large targets (over 4,400 lb. [2,000 kg]) hitting the water at speeds of over 3,280 ft. per second (1,000 m per second) to have source levels in water of approximately 291 dB re 1 μPa re 1 m, although with very short pulse durations. However, the author does caution that the model may be an oversimplification for several stated reasons, and that measurements of actual levels may yield values 10–20 dB less than theoretical predictions. Sound associated with the impact event is typically of low frequency (less than 250 Hz) and of short duration.
4-28 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
The effect of weapons firing, launch, and impact noise on water column EFH should be temporary and minimal, for the same reasons small airgun fire associated with swimmer defense testing is not expected to cause direct trauma to fish and invertebrates, or affect water column EFH and HAPC. Fish lacking a swim bladder are even less likely to experience direct trauma from weapons firing, launch, and impact noise. Abiotic substrate and associated seagrass or sedentary invertebrate beds should be unaffected because the pressure wave generated by weapons firing, launch, and impact noise would not be strong enough to disrupt abiotic substrates, would not be used in locations near these habitats, and would only last for a very limited duration.
4.1.2 ENERGY STRESSORS This section analyzes the potential impacts of energy stressors that can occur during training and testing activities within the Study Area.
4.1.2.1 Electromagnetic Devices The training activities that involve the use of magnetic influence mine neutralization systems include:
• Mine Countermeasure – Towed Mine Detection • Maritime Homeland Defense/Security Mine Countermeasures
The testing activities that involve the use of magnetic influence mine neutralization systems include:
• Mine Countermeasure Mission Package
The majority of devices involved in the activities described above include towed or unmanned MIW systems that simply mimic the electromagnetic signature of a vessel passing through the water. None of the devices include any type of electromagnetic “pulse.” An example of a representative device is the Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep. The Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep is towed from a forward flying helicopter and works by emitting an electromagnetic field and mechanically generated underwater sound to simulate the presence of a ship. The sound and electromagnetic signature cause nearby mines to detonate.
Generally, voltage used to power these systems is around 30 volts relative to seawater. This amount of voltage is comparable to two automobile batteries. Since saltwater is an excellent conductor, only very moderate voltages of 35 volts (capped at 55 volts) are required to generate the current. These small levels represent no danger of electrocution in the marine environment, because the difference in electric charge is very low in saltwater.
The static magnetic field generated by the electromagnetic devices is of relatively minute strength. Typically, the maximum magnetic field generated would be approximately 23 gauss (G). This level of electromagnetic density is very low compared to magnetic fields generated by other everyday items. The magnetic field generated is between the levels of a refrigerator magnet (150–200 G) and a standard household can opener (up to 4 G at 4 in. [10.2 cm]). The strength of the electromagnetic field decreases quickly away from the cable. The magnetic field generated at a distance of 13.12 ft. (4 m) from the source is comparable to the earth’s magnetic field, which is approximately 0.5 G. The strength of the field at just under 26 ft. (8 m) is only 40 percent of the earth’s field, and only 10 percent at 79 ft. (24 m). At a radius of 656 ft. (200 m) the magnetic field would be approximately 0.002 G (U.S. Department of the Navy 2005).
4-29 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Potential Impacts to the Water Column An electromagnetic charge could affect the water column habitat by impacting fish and invertebrates inhabiting this area. A comprehensive review of information regarding the sensitivity of marine organisms to electric and magnetic impulses, including fishes comprising the subclass elasmobranchii (sharks, skates, and rays; hereafter referred to as elasmobranchs), as well as other bony fishes, is presented in Normandeau (2011). The synthesis of available data and information contained in this report suggests that while many fish species (particularly elasmobranchs) are sensitive to electromagnetic fields, further investigation is necessary to understand the physiological response and magnitude of the potential effects. Most examinations of electromagnetic fields on marine fishes have focused on buried undersea cables associated with offshore wind farms in European waters (Boehlert and Gill 2010; Gill 2005; Ohman et al. 2007).
Many fish groups including elasmobranchs, salmon, and others, have an acute sensitivity to electrical fields, known as electroreception (Bullock et al. 1983; Helfman et al. 2009). Elasmobranchs are more sensitive than the others. In elasmobranchs, behavioral and physiological response to electromagnetic stimulus varies by species and age, and appears to be related to foraging behavior (Rigg et al. 2009). Many elasmobranchs respond physiologically to electric fields of 10 nanovolts (nV) per cm and behaviorally at 5 nV per cm (Collin and Whitehead 2004). Electroreceptive marine fishes identified above with ampullary (pouch) organs can detect considerably higher frequencies of 50 Hz to more than 2 kHz (Helfman et al. 2009). The distribution of electroreceptors on the head of these fishes, especially around the mouth (e.g., along the rostrum of sawfishes), suggests that these sensory organs may be used in foraging. Additionally, some researchers hypothesize that the electroreceptors aid in social communication (Collin and Whitehead 2004).
While elasmobranchs and other fishes can sense the level of the earth’s electromagnetic field, the potential effects on fish resulting from changes in the strength or orientation of the background field are not well understood. Electroreceptors are thought to aid in navigation, orientation, and migration of sharks and rays (Kalmijn 2000). The exact mechanism is unknown and no magnetic sensory organ has been discovered, but magnetite (a magnetic mineral) is incorporated into the tissues of these fishes (Helfman et al. 2009). Some species of salmon and tuna been shown to respond to magnetic fields and may also contain magnetite in their tissues (Helfman et al. 2009). When the electromagnetic field is enhanced or altered, sensitive fishes may experience an interruption or disturbance in normal sensory perception. Research on the electrosensitivity of sharks indicates that some species respond to electrical impulses with an apparent avoidance reaction (Helfman et al. 2009; Kalmijn 2000). This avoidance response has been exploited as a shark deterrent, to repel sharks from areas of overlap with human activity (Marcotte and Lowe 2008).
Both laboratory and field studies confirm that elasmobranchs (and some teleost [bony] fishes) are sensitive to electromagnetic fields, but the long-term impacts are not well-known. Electromagnetic sensitivity in some marine fishes (e.g., salmonids) is already well-developed at early life stages (Ohman et al. 2007), with sensitivities reported as low as 0.6 millivolt per cm in Atlantic salmon (Formicki et al. 2004); however, most of the limited research that has occurred focuses on adults. Some species appear to be attracted to undersea cables, while others show avoidance (Ohman et al. 2007). Under controlled laboratory conditions, the scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) and sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) exhibited altered swimming and feeding behaviors in response to very weak electric fields (less than 1 nV per cm) (Kajiura and Holland 2002). A field trial in the Florida Keys demonstrated that southern stingray (Dasyatis americana) and nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) detected and avoided a fixed magnetic field producing a flux of 950 G (O'Connell et al. 2010). The maximum
4-30 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
electromagnetic fields typically generated during Navy training and testing activities is approximately 23 G.
Little information exists regarding invertebrate susceptibility to electromagnetic fields. Most corals are thought to use water temperature, day length, and tidal fluctuations as cues for spawning. Magnetic fields are not known to control coral spawning release or larval settlement. Some arthropods (e.g., spiny lobster and American lobster) can sense magnetic fields, and this is thought to assist the animal with navigation and orientation (Lohmann et al. 1995; Normandeau et al. 2011). These animals travel relatively long distances during their lives, and it is possible that magnetic field sensation exists for other invertebrates that travel long distances. Marine invertebrates, including several commercially important species and federally managed species, have the potential to use magnetic cues (Normandeau et al. 2011). Susceptibility experiments have focused on arthropods, but several mollusks and echinoderms are also susceptible. However, because susceptibility is variable within taxonomic groups it is not possible to make generalized predictions for groups of marine invertebrates. Sensitivity thresholds vary by species ranging from 0.3 to 30 millitesla, and responses included non-lethal physiological and behavioral changes (Normandeau et al. 2011). The primary use of magnetic cues seems to be navigation and orientation. Human-introduced electromagnetic fields have the potential to disrupt these cues and interfere with navigation, orientation, and migration. Because electromagnetic fields weaken exponentially with distance from the source, large and sustained magnetic fields present greater exposure risks than small and transient fields, even if the small field is many times stronger than the earth’s magnetic field (Normandeau et al. 2011). Transient or moving electromagnetic fields may cause temporary disturbance to susceptible organisms’ navigation and orientation.
The temporary behavioral effect of electromagnetic stressors on susceptible fish and invertebrates is not expected to result in a population-level response. Therefore, the effect on water column EFH would be temporary and minimal.
Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrates and Biogenic Habitats Substrate is unaffected by electromagnetic devices due to lack of a physical disturbance component. Beds of submerged rooted vegetation are unaffected because they lack a central nervous system susceptible to electromagnetic stressors. Sedentary invertebrate beds and reefs should not be impacted because their navigation and orientation is not important, though mobile larvae may be affected. Therefore, for substrate and biogenic habitat EFH, there is no adverse impact expected from electromagnetic stressors. Likewise, there are no adverse impacts expected on these habitats within HAPCs.
There is no adverse impact expected from electromagnetic stressors on substrates and biogenic habitat, and there are no adverse impacts expected on these habitats within HAPCs.
4.1.3 PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE AND STRIKE STRESSORS This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of physical disturbance and strike stressors resulting from the military conducting its training and testing activities within the Study Area. The water column, benthic substrates (e.g., soft and hard bottom), and biogenic habitats (e.g., coral, live bottom) designated as EFH are potentially subject to physical disturbance by vessels, in-water devices, military expended materials, and seafloor devices associated with military training and testing.
4-31 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
This section describes the potential characteristics of physical disturbance and strike stressors from military training and testing activities. It also describes the relative magnitude and location of these activities to provide the basis for analysis of potential physical disturbance to designated EFH.
4.1.3.1 Vessels Vessels are a part of nearly all training and testing exercises that occur in the Study Area. As such, Navy vessels are frequently transiting throughout the Study Area and in and out of ports. Table 4-11 provides a list of vessel types, as well as examples of each type, their typical length, and speed. The potential impacts of these movements to designated EFH and HAPCs are outlined below.
Table 4-11: Representative Vessel Types, Lengths, and Speeds
Typical Type Example(s) Length Operating Max Speed Speed Aircraft Carrier Aircraft Carrier (CVN) > 300 m 10–15 knots 30+ knots Surface Combatant Cruisers (CG), Destroyers (DDG), Frigates 100–200 m 10–15 knots 30+ knots (FFG), Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) Amphibious Warfare Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA, LHD), 100–300 m 10–15 knots 20+ knots Ship Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD), Dock Landing Ship (LSD) Support Craft/Other Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV); 5–45 m Variable 20 knots Combat Rubber Raiding Craft (CRRC); Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM); Landing Craft, Utility (LCU); Submarine Tenders (AS); Yard Patrol Craft (YP) Support Craft/Other High Speed Ferry/Catamaran; Patrol 20–40 m Variable 50+ knots – Specialized High Coastal Ships (PC); Rigid Hull Inflatable Speed Boat (RHIB) Submarines Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN), 100–200 m 8–13 knots 20+ knots Attack Submarines (SSN), Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN) Note: m = meters
Surface ships, propelled either by water jet pump or by propeller, and small craft would be used in the Study Area. Boats in the Study Area may approach the shore or beach below the mean high tide line to transport personnel or equipment to and from shore. Some activities involve vessels towing in-water devices used in MIW activities, but these are operated in a manner to ensure they avoid contacting the sea floor.
Some vessels, such as amphibious vehicles, might contact the seafloor substrate in the surf zone while transitioning over the beach onto land (although this is intentionally avoided to preserve equipment). Over the beach landings are possible for various training activities, such as Amphibious Assault, Amphibious Raid, Noncombatant Evacuation Operation, Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief, Civilian Port Defense, Personnel Insertion/Extraction, Underwater Survey, Joint Expeditionary Exercise, Marine Air Ground Task Force (Amphibious) – Battalion Exercise, and Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force Exercise. These events each have their individual requirements and platforms, and may use various beaches and landings on Guam, Tinian, and Rota. Guam beach landings may include Dadi Beach, Reserve Craft Beach, Toyland Beach, Sumay Channel/Cove, Clipper Channel, San Luis Beach, Gab Gab Beach, and Haputo Beach. Tinian beaches and landings may include Unai Chulu, Unai Dankulo, Unai
4-32 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Babui, and Tinian Harbor. Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show the beach landing sites on Guam in relation to vegetation and coral coverage, and Figures 4-5 and 4-6 show the Tinian beach landing locations in relation to vegetation and coral coverage.
4-33 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 4-5: Tinian Amphibious Landing Beaches in Relation to Marine Vegetation
4-34 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Figure 4-6: Tinian Amphibious Landing Beaches in Relation to Coral
4-35 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Prior to any amphibious over-the-beach training activity conducted with larger amphibious vehicles such as Landing Craft Air Cushions (LCACs) or Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs) (e.g., Amphibious Assaults), a hydrographic survey and a beach survey would be required. The surveys would be conducted to identify and designate boat lanes and beach landing areas that are clear of coral, hard bottom substrate, and obstructions. LCAC landing and departure activities would be scheduled at high tide. In addition, LCACs would stay fully on cushion or hover when over shallow reef to avoid corals and hard bottom substrate. This is a standard operating procedure for safe operation of LCACs. Over-the-beach amphibious activity would only occur within designated areas based on the hydrographic and beach surveys. Similarly, AAV activities would only be scheduled within designated boat lanes and beach landing areas and would conduct their beach landings and departures at high tide one vehicle at a time within their designated boat lane (Commander, Naval Forces Marianas [COMNAVMAR] Instruction 3500.4A). Based on the surveys, if the beach landing area and boat lane is clear, the activity could be conducted, and crews would follow procedures to avoid obstructions to navigation, including coral reefs; however, if there is any potential for impacts on corals or hard bottom substrate, the Navy will coordinate with applicable resource agencies before conducting the activity. Hydrographic and beach surveys would not be necessary for beach landings with small boats, such as rigid hull inflatable boats (RHIBs).
Potential Impacts to the Water Column As vessels transit through an area, the water column would be temporarily disturbed by the vessels’ movement. However, as the water would not be altered in any measurable or lasting manner, there would be no adverse impact to the water column itself.
Amphibious vessels would approach the shore and could beach, which would disturb sediments and increase turbidity. The impact of large, power-driven vessels on the substrate in the surf zone would be minor because of the dispersed nature of the amphibious landings and the dynamic nature of sediments in areas of surf and tidal energy.
Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrate Vessel movements could affect soft bottom habitats during amphibious landings by increasing turbidity. Ocean approaches would be expected to have minimal effects on soft bottom marine habitats because of the nature of high-energy surf and shifting sands. The movement of sediment by wave energy would fill in disturbed soft-bottom habitat similar to sediment recovery from a severe storm. Therefore, vessel movements in the Study Area would be expected to have a minimal effect to soft bottom marine habitats.
Physical disturbances and strikes of hard bottom substrates by vessels would cause damage to the vessel and are avoided. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to hard bottom substrates or artificial structures as a result of vessel movements.
Potential Impacts to Biogenic Habitats As with hard bottom substrates, physical disturbances and strikes of benthic biogenic habitats by vessels would cause damage to the vessel and are avoided. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to benthic biogenic habitats as a result of vessel movements.
For both training and testing activities, vessel movements would have minimal effects on the water column, soft or hard bottom substrates, or benthic biogenic habitats designated as EFH or HAPC.
4-36
Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
4.1.3.2 In-Water Devices In-water devices include towed devices and unmanned vehicles such as remotely operated vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles, and unmanned undersea vehicles. These devices are self-propelled and unmanned or towed through the water from a variety of platforms including helicopters, unmanned underwater vehicles, or surface ships. In-water devices are generally smaller than most Navy vessels, ranging from several inches to about 15 m. See Table 4-12 for a range of in-water devices used.
These devices can operate anywhere from the water surface to the benthic zone. Certain devices do not have a realistic potential to strike living marine resources because they either move slowly through the water column (e.g., most unmanned undersurface vehicles) or are closely monitored by observers manning the towing platform (e.g., most towed devices).
Table 4-12: Representative Types, Sizes, and Speeds of In-Water Devices
Typical Type Example(s) Length Operating Speed Towed Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS); Airborne Mine < 10 m 10–40 knots Device Neutralization System (AMNS); AQS Systems; Improved Surface Tow Target (ISTT); Towed SONAR System; MK-103, MK-104 and MK-105 Minesweeping Systems; OASIS, Orion, Shallow Water Intermediate Search System, Towed Pinger Locator 30 Unmanned MK-33 SEPTAR Drone Boat, QST-35A Seaborne Powered Target, < 15 m Variable, up to Surface Ship Deployable Seaborne Target (SDST), Small Waterplane Area 50+ knots Vehicle Twin Hull (SWATH), Unmanned Influence Sweep System (UISS) Unmanned Acoustic Mine Targeting System, AMNS, AN-ASQ Systems, < 15 m 1–15 knots Undersea Archerfish Common Neutralizer, Crawlers, CURV 21, Deep Drone Vehicle 8000, Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle, Gliders, Expendable Mobile ASW Training Targets (EMATTs), Light and Heavy Weight Torpedoes, Magnum Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV), Manned Portables, MINIROVs (MK 30 ASW Targets, RMMV (Remote Multi- Mission Vehicle), Remote Minehunting System (RMS), Unmanned Influence Sweep Notes: m = meter(s), OASIS = Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep
Potential Impacts to the Water Column As in-water devices pass through an area, the water column would be temporarily disturbed. However, as the water would not be altered in any measurable or lasting manner, there would be no adverse impact to the water column itself.
Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrate Physical disturbances and strikes of benthic substrates by in-water devices would cause damage to the in-water devices and are avoided. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to benthic substrates as a result of the use of in-water devices.
Potential Impacts to Biogenic Habitats As with benthic substrates, physical disturbances and strikes of benthic biogenic habitats by in-water devices would cause damage to the device and are avoided. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to benthic biogenic habitats as a result of the use of in-water devices.
For both training and testing activities, the use of in-water devices would have no effect on the water column, soft or hard bottom substrates, or benthic biogenic habitats designated as EFH or HAPC.
4-37 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
4.1.3.3 Military Expended Materials Many different types of military expended materials remain at sea following military training and testing activities that occur throughout the Study Area, as described in Section 2.4 (Description of the Action Area). Military expended materials include: (1) NEPM; (2) fragments from high explosive munitions; and (3) expended materials other than ordnance, such as sonobuoys, ship hulks, expendable targets and aircraft stores (fuel tanks, carriages, dispensers, racks, carriages or similar types of support systems on aircraft which could be expended or recovered).
The potential for physical disturbance to habitats designated as EFH by expended materials from military training and testing activities exists throughout the Study Area, although the types of military expended materials vary by activity and region with some locations having greater concentration of activity than others. Section 2.2.3 (Military Expended Materials) provides a description of expended materials that are used in military training and testing activities.
Potential Impacts to the Water Column As the military expended materials would either drift in the water column or pass quickly through the water column as they sink to the seafloor without altering the water in any measurable or lasting manner, there would be no adverse impact to the water column itself. Impacts associated with the degradation of military expended materials and their effect on water quality are discussed in contaminant stressors.
Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrate Military expended materials have the potential to physically disturb marine substrates to the extent that they impair the substrate’s ability to function as a habitat. These disturbances can result from several sources including the physical impact of the expended material contacting the substrate, the covering of the substrate by the expended material, or the alteration of the substrate from one type to another (e.g., converting soft bottom substrate into hard bottom resulting from solid expended materials overlying soft substrates).
The likelihood of military expended materials adversely impacting substrates and biogenic habitats as they come into contact with the seafloor depends on several factors including the size, type, mass, and speed of the material; water depth; the amount of material expended; the frequency of training or testing; and the type of substrate or biogenic community. Most of the kinetic energy of the expended material, however, is dissipated within the first few yards of the object entering the water causing it to slow considerably by the time it reaches the seafloor. Because the damage caused by a strike is proportional to the force of the strike, slower speeds may result in lesser impacts.
Due to the depth of water in which most training and testing events take place, a direct strike on hard bottom is unlikely to occur with sufficient force to damage the substrate. Any potential damage would be to a small portion of the structural habitat. The value of many of these substrates as habitat, however, is not entirely dependent on the precise shape of the structure. An alteration in shape or structure caused by military expended materials would not necessarily reduce the habitat value of hard bottom. In softer substrates (e.g., sand, mud, silt, clay, and composites), the impact of the expended material coming into contact with the seafloor, if large enough and striking with sufficient momentum, may result in a depression and a localized redistribution of sediments as they are temporarily resuspended into the water column. During military training and testing, countermeasures such as flares and chaff are introduced into the marine environment. These types of military expended materials are
4-38 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
not expected to impact substrates as strike stressors given their smaller size and low velocity when deployed compared to projectiles, bombs, and missiles.
Another potential physical disturbance military expended materials could have on substrates would be to cover them or to alter the type of substrate and, therefore, its function as habitat. The majority of military expended materials that settle on hard bottoms, while covering the substrate, would still serve the same habitat function as the substrate it is covering by providing a hard surface on which organisms can settle and attach (Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8). Full colonization or fouling of the expended material would occur over an approximately 18-month timeframe, depending on the area, as depicted in a study done on artificial reefs using limestone deposits (Carter and Prekel 2008). An exception would be expended materials like the parachutes utilized to deploy sonobuoys, lightweight torpedoes, expendable mobile ASW training targets, and other devices from aircraft, that would not provide a hard surface for colonization or fouling. In these cases, the hard bottom that is covered by the expended material would not be physically damaged; however, if that portion of the hard bottom is covered by the expended material, it would have its ability to function as a habitat for colonizing or encrusting organisms impaired.
Most military expended materials that settle on soft bottom habitats, while not damaging the actual substrate, would inhibit the substrate’s ability to function as a habitat by covering it with a hard surface. This would effectively alter the substrate from a soft surface to a hard structure and, therefore, would alter the ability of the substrate from one capable of supporting a soft bottom community to one that would be more appropriate as habitat for organisms more commonly found associated with hard bottom environments (Figure 4-9). Expended materials that settle in the shallower, more dynamic environments of the continental shelf would likely be eventually covered over by sediments due to currents and other coastal processes or encrusted by organisms. In the deeper waters of the continental slope and beyond where currents do not play as large of a role, expended materials may remain exposed on the surface of the substrate with minimal change for extended periods (Figure 4-9). Softer expended materials, such as parachutes, would also not damage the sediments but would likely impair its ability to function as a habitat to some degree. Impacts associated with the degradation of military expended materials and its effect on sediment quality is discussed in contaminant stressors.
Potential Impacts to Biogenic Habitats As with substrates, military expended materials have the potential to adversely impact the benthic invertebrates and vegetation that compose the biogenic habitats (e.g., coral, sponges, macroalgae, hydroids, amphipod tubes, bryozoans) coinciding with areas where training and testing events occur. Due to their size and minimal weight, smaller items such as small-caliber projectiles may result in little to no damage to biogenic habitats while larger, heavier items such as large-caliber projectiles, bombs, or missiles may break or crush the sessile invertebrates (e.g., coral, sponges, etc.) which may occur where military materials would be expended. Damage to these habitats would be primarily confined to the area of impact. As observed in recent benthic surveys in the Jacksonville OPAREA, expended munitions and other hard objects that land in areas of live/hard bottom serve as colonizing structures in much the same way as the surrounding substrates (Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8), so recovery of the area would be expected over time.
Other types of military expended materials such as parachutes, associated with certain air-dropped munitions and devices, may not adversely impact a habitat through its initial contact, but may potentially cover and potentially smother the habitat over time instead. Unlike munitions and many other solid expended materials, it is unlikely that benthic invertebrates would colonize materials such as
4-39 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
parachutes, potentially resulting in a loss of biogenic habitat in areas where parachutes settle for as long as they remain in place and intact.
Estuarine and nearshore biogenic habitats such as seagrass, mangroves, and wetlands are unlikely to be impacted by military expended materials due to their close proximity to shore, well away from most areas of training and testing where military materials would be expended.
Figure 4-7: A MK-58 Smoke Float Observed in an Area Dominated by Coral Rubble on the Continental Slope
Note: Observed at approximately 191 fathoms (350 meters) in depth and 60 nautical miles east of Jacksonville, Florida. Of note is the use of the smoke float as a colonizing substrate for a cluster of sea anemones (U.S. Department of the Navy 2010).
Figure 4-8: An Unidentified, Non-Military Structure Observed on the Ridge System Running Parallel to the Continental Shelf Break
4-40 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Note: Observed at approximately 44 fathoms (80 meters) in depth and 55 nautical miles east of Jacksonville, Florida. Of note is that encrusting organisms and benthic invertebrates readily colonize the artificial structure to a similar degree as the surrounding rock outcrop (U.S. Department of the Navy 2010).
Figure 4-9: (Left) A 76-Millimeter Cartridge Casing on Soft Bottom. (Right) A Blackbelly Rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) Using the Casing for Shelter When Disturbed
Note: The casing was observed in a sandy area on the continental slope approximately 232 fathoms (425 meters) in depth and 70 nautical miles east of Jacksonville, Florida. The casing has not become covered by sediments due to the depth and the relatively calm, current-free environment. When disturbed, the rosefish retreated inside the casing for protection.
4.1.3.3.1 Training Activities Military expended materials used as part of training activities occurring in the Study Area, as well as outside of these areas, have the potential to adversely affect benthic and biogenic habitats designated as EFH. In addition, designated HAPCs coinciding with areas of training activity may also be adversely affected. The portions of the water column designated as EFH would be minimally impacted by military expended materials from training events.
High-explosive military expended material would typically fragment into small pieces. Ordnance that fails to function as designed and inert munitions would result in larger pieces of military expended material settling to the seafloor. Once on the seafloor, military expended material would be buried by sediments, corroded from exposure to the marine environment, or colonized by benthic organisms.
Because training activities involving military expended materials have the potential to impact substrates designated as EFH within the areas where training is occurring, the Study Area was evaluated to determine what the level of impact could be under the Proposed Action. In an attempt to quantify the potential level of disturbance of military expended materials on bottom substrates within the Study Area, an analysis of two worst case scenarios were developed. As a conservative measure for the analyses, within each category of expended items (e.g., bombs, missiles, rockets, large-caliber projectiles, etc.), the size of the largest item which would be expended was used to represent the sizes of all items in the category. For example, the footprint of missiles used during training exercises range from 1.6 to 37.4 ft.2 (0.15 to 3.5 m2), respectively. For the analyses, all missiles were assumed to be equivalent to the largest in size, or 37.4 ft.2 (3.5 m2). In addition, it was also assumed that the impact of the expended material on the seafloor is twice the size of its footprint. This assumption accounts for any
4-41 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
displacement of sediments at the time of impact as well as any subsequent movement of the item on the seafloor due to currents or other forces. This should more accurately reflect the potential disturbance to soft bottom habitats, but should overestimate disturbance to hard bottom habitats since no displacement of the substrate would occur. In addition, items with casings (e.g., small, medium, and large-caliber munitions; flares; sonobuoys; etc.) have their impact footprints doubled to account for both the item and its casing. To be conservative, items and their casings were assumed to be the same size.
During sinking exercises (SINKEXs), large amounts of military expended material and a vessel hulk would be expended. Sinking exercises in the Study Area, however, would occur over 50 nm from shore, where the substrate would be primarily clays and silts. Impacts of military materials expended over deep-water would be negligible because the military would typically avoid hard-bottom sub-surface features (e.g., seamounts). Vessel hulks used during SINKEXs would alter the bottom substrate, converting soft bottom habitat into an artificial, hard-bottom structure. The amount of area affected by vessel hulks would be a fraction of the available training area, and the vessel hulk would be an anchoring point in the open ocean where the predominant habitat is soft bottom.
Potential impacts to soft bottom habitats from military expended materials would range from temporary to permanent, depending upon the nature of the environment in which the expended material settled. In areas subject to dynamic coastal processes such as tidal influx or currents, the military expended materials may be covered by sediments over time. In such cases, the temporal impact of the military expended material on the environment would be temporary (recovery in days to weeks) to short term (recovery in less than 3 years). However, were the military expended materials to settle on soft bottom in areas rarely disturbed by currents or other forces, such as on many areas of the continental slope, the items may persist on the bottom indefinitely. In such cases, the items would cover the soft bottom with a hard structure (the military expended material itself), thus inhibiting the soft bottom’s ability to function as a habitat within the direct vicinity of the item. In such instances, the military expended material would function more as an artificial structure rather than as soft bottom habitat (see Figure 4-9). This would result in a long term (recovery in more than 3 years but less than 20 years were the item to decompose or break down over time), or permanent (recovery in more than 20 years) impact to the habitat. The spatial extent of the impact would be minimal, limited to the footprint of the individual military expended material. In cases where multiple military materials are expended in the same area, the same habitat may be impacted numerous times during a given training activity and the overall impact to the habitat would be cumulative of the footprints of all of the military expended materials to settle on the habitat.
Potential impacts to hard bottom substrates would primarily be temporary to short term. The military expended materials that settled on hard bottom would initially impair the substrate’s ability to function as a habitat, but would ultimately serve the same function as the habitat they cover leading to only a temporary or short-term impact (see Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8). The exception would be items made of soft material, such as parachutes, that would impair the substrate or structure’s ability to function as a habitat for as long as it was present. The spatial extent of the impact would be the same as noted for soft bottom substrates.
A total of 261,470 military items would be expended annually in the Study Area during training activities, which would result in a total impact area of approximately 1,702,924 ft.2 (158,208 m2). The majority of the impact area would be ship hulks expended during SINKEXs. With an impact area of 632,000 ft.2 (58,740 m2) for each vessel and up to two SINKEXs per year, ship hulks would account for about 75
4-42 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
percent (1,264,544 ft.2 [117,480 m2]) of the annual impact area for training activities under the Proposed Action.
Military expended materials resulting from training activities would adversely affect soft bottom substrates designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. Based on the results of a worst case scenario where all military expended materials settled in areas of soft bottom substrates (Table 4-13), the effect would be minimal based on the small amount of available habitat affected. The duration of the effect to the areas that were affected, however, would range from long term to permanent.
Military expended materials resulting from training activities would adversely affect hard bottom substrates designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. Based on the results of a worst case scenario where all military expended materials settled in areas of hard bottom substrates (Table 4-13), the effect would be minimal based on the small amount of available habitat affected. The duration of the effect to the areas that were affected would range from temporary to short term.
Biogenic habitats may also be potentially impacted by military expended materials. While the least common of the benthic habitat types and, therefore, the least likely to be impacted, benthic biogenic habitats have concentrated distributions throughout the Study Area, particularly occurring along the coastal portions of the Study Area. The primary types of biogenic habitats that may potentially be impacted by military expended materials include coral and coral reefs, live bottom (e.g., areas with sponges, bryozoans, hydroids, amphipod tubes), and attached macroalgae. Impacts to benthic biogenic habitats would range from short term to permanent depending on the type of organisms impacted. Most benthic organisms and macroalgae would recover from an impact over a short time period (less than 3 years). Military expended material in the coastal portions of the Study Area would be limited to small-caliber projectiles, flares, parachutes, and target fragments. These materials would be small, and would typically be covered by sediment or colonized by benthic organisms. The small size of military expended materials would not change the habitat structure. Therefore, military expended material from training activities in the Study Area would have a minimal effect on biogenic habitats.
4-43 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 4-13: Annual Numbers and Impacts of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use under the Proposed Action
Impact Military Expended Size Training Activities Testing Activities 2 Footprint Material (m ) 2 (m ) Number Impact (m2) Number Impact (m2) Bombs 1.5022 3.0044 212 636.93 0 0 Bombs (NEPM) 1.5022 3.0044 848 2,547.73 0 0 Small caliber 0.0028 0.0056 86,140 482.34 2,000 11.2 Medium caliber 0.0052 0.0104 8,250 85.8 2,040 21.21 Medium caliber (NEPM) 0.0052 0.0104 85,500 889.2 2,040 21.21 Large Caliber 0.0938 0.1876 1,300 243.88 3,920 735.4 Large Caliber (NEPM) 0.0938 0.1876 5,238 982.65 8,680 1,628.37 Missiles 3.4715 6.9430 113 784.5 20 138.86 Missiles (NEPM) 3.4715 6.9430 0 0 20 138.86 Rockets 0.0742 0.1484 114 16.92 0 0 Rockets (NEPM) 0.0742 0.1484 0 0 0 0 Chaff (cartridges) – 0.0001 0.0002 25,840 5.17 600 0.12 aircraft Flares 0.1133 0.2266 25,600 5,800.96 300 67.98 Acoustic counter- 0.0289 0.0578 0 0 0 0 measures Expendable Targets 9 18 414 7,452 360 6,481.66 Ship hulk (SINKEX) 29,370 58,740 2 117,480 0 0 Torpedo/accessories 0.7 1.4 63 88.2 116 162.40 Sonobuoys 0.1134 0.2268 10,980 2,490.26 1,213 137.55 Explosive sonobuoys 0.0906 0.1812 11 1.99 793 143.69 Decelerators/Parachutes 0.84 1.68 10,845 18,219.6 1,727 2,901.36 Total 261,470 158,208 23,829 12,588.21 Notes: NEPM = Non-explosive Practice Munitions, SINKEX = Sinking Exercise, m2 = square meter(s)
Coral would take the longest to recover from any injury sustained as a result of military expended materials, as it is slow growing and it often takes decades for a damaged reef to recover. Impacts to coral would range from long term (recovery in more than 3 years but less than 20 years) to permanent (recovery in more than 20 years), depending on the severity of the damage and the type of coral impacted. Coral reefs occur within the Study Area (see Figures 3-11 to 3-20). Deep-water corals also occur in the Study Area; however, given the limited spatial extent of deep-water coral within the Study Area and the general location where activities occur, it is highly unlikely that military expended materials would land in the vicinity of deep-water coral found within the Study Area.
4-44 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Military expended materials resulting from training activities would adversely affect live bottom organisms (e.g., areas with sponges, bryozoans, hydroids, amphipod tubes) and macroalgae designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. However, due to the small amount of area expended materials would impact and the low likelihood that military material would be expended on biogenic habitat (based on the limited distribution), the effect to these habitats from military expended materials would be minimal. For areas that would potentially be affected, the duration of the impact would be short term.
Military expended materials resulting from training activities would adversely affect coral and coral reefs designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. Due to the size of the area in which activities would occur and the limited distribution of biogenic habitats, the effect to these habitats from military expended materials would be minimal. However, should an effect occur, the duration of the effect would be long term to permanent.
4.1.3.3.2 Testing Activities Military expended materials from testing activities occurring in the Study Area, as well as outside of these areas, have the potential to adversely impact benthic and biogenic habitats designated as EFH. In addition, designated HAPCs coinciding with areas of testing activities may also be adversely affected. The portions of the water column designated as EFH would not be impacted by military expended materials from testing events.
Using the same methodology as for training activities, testing activities were also analyzed to determine the potential impacts of military expended materials on benthic substrates under a worst case scenario of all military expended materials used during testing exercises within a given testing range settling to the bottom. Based on the results, military expended materials resulting from testing activities would impact less than 1 percent of the available seafloor within the Study Area annually, even under a worst case scenario (Table 4-13). Those impacts that do occur would be the same as characterized in the discussion in the previous section (see Section 4.1.3.3.1, Training Activities).
The potential impacts to biogenic habitats from military expended materials resulting from testing activities would be the same as described for the training activities in Section 4.1.3.3.1 (Training Activities).
4-45 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Military expended materials resulting from testing activities would adversely affect live bottom organisms (e.g., areas with sponges, bryozoans, hydroids, amphipod tubes) and macroalgae designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. However, due to the small amount of area expended materials would impact and the low likelihood that military material would be expended on biogenic habitat (based on the limited distribution), the effect to these habitats from military expended materials would likely be minimal. For areas that could potentially be affected, the duration of the impact would be short term.
Military expended materials resulting from testing activities would adversely affect coral reefs designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. Due to the sizes of the Study Area in which activities would occur and the limited distribution of biogenic habitats, the effect to these habitats from military expended materials would likely be minimal. However, were an effect to occur, the duration of the impact would be long term to permanent.
4.1.3.4 Seafloor Devices 4.1.3.4.1 Seafloor Devices Seafloor devices represent any item used during training or testing activities that intentionally comes into contact with the seafloor, but are later recovered. These items include moored mine shapes, and anchors. Seafloor devices are stationary and do not pose a threat to highly mobile organisms.
Mine shapes are typically deployed via surface vessels or fixed-wing aircraft. Under the Proposed Action, 480 mine shapes would be used during mine laying training activities. Mine shapes would be used in Warning Area 517, which is located over predominately soft bottom habitat in the offshore area. Additional seafloor devices are utilized during pierside integrated swimmer defense activities and testing activities at the North Pacific Acoustic Lab’s Deep Water site. The deep water experimental site consists of an acoustic tomography array, a distributed vertical line array, and moorings in the deep- water environment (depths greater than 3,280 ft. [1,000 m]) of the northwestern Philippine Sea. These locations would include seafloors consisting of soft bottom habitat of unconsolidated sediments. Most moored mines deployed from surface vessels are typically secured with up to a 2,700 lb. (1,225 kg) concrete mooring block (approximately 30 in. [76.2 cm] to a side). Moored mines deployed from fixed-wing aircraft enter the water and impact the bottom, becoming semi-submerged. Upon impact, the mine casing separates and the semi-buoyant mine floats through the water column until it reaches the end of the mooring line. Bottom mines are typically positioned manually and are allowed to free sink to the bottom to rest. Mine shapes are normally deployed over soft sediments and are recovered within 7–30 days following the completion of the training or testing events.
Additionally there would be 18 precision anchoring activities which would occur within predetermined shallow water anchorage locations near ports. These locations would include seafloors consisting with soft bottom habitat of unconsolidated sediments. The intent of these training exercises is to practice anchoring the vessel within 100 yards (yd.) of the planned anchorage location. These training activities typically occur within predetermined shallow water anchorage locations near ports with seafloors consisting of soft bottom substrate.
Potential Impacts to the Water Column The use of seafloor devices would not alter the water in any measurable or lasting manner. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to the water column itself.
4-46 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Potential Impacts to Benthic Substrate As a result of their temporary nature, mine shapes would not permanently impact the substrate on which they are placed. However, their presence would temporarily impair the ability of the substrate to function as a habitat for as long as the mine shape is in place. As mine shapes are primarily deployed over soft bottom substrates, hard bottom would not be impacted.
The level of impact to substrates from precision anchoring training exercises would depend on the size of the anchor used, which would vary according to vessel type. Since these activities only take place in pre-designated areas consisting of soft bottom substrates, areas of hard bottom would not be affected. As most of these activities occur in areas subject to constant wave action and cycles of erosion and deposition, disturbed areas would likely be reworked by waves and tides shortly after the disturbance.
The use of seafloor devices during training and testing activities could potentially have an adverse effect on soft bottom substrates. These effects would be minimal in size and temporary (recovery in days to weeks) in duration. Hard bottom substrates would not be affected by the use of seafloor devices as they are generally avoided.
Potential Impacts to Biogenic Habitats As mine shape deployment and precision anchoring exercises are typically done only in areas of soft bottom substrates, areas of live/hard bottom and coral would not be impacted. In addition, as a result of the distance from shore that these activities are conducted, submerged aquatic vegetation, mangroves, marshes, shellfish beds, and wetlands would also not be impacted.
The use of seafloor devices during training and testing activities would adversely affect live bottom organisms (e.g., areas with sponges, bryozoans, hydroids, amphipod tubes) and macroalgae designated as EFH in areas where these activities occur. These activities could potentially have an adverse effect on soft bottom substrates. These effects would be minimal in size and temporary (recovery in days to weeks) in duration. Hard bottom substrates would not be affected by the use of seafloor devices as they are generally avoided.
4.1.4 CONTAMINANT STRESSORS This section considers the impacts on marine sediment and water quality from explosives, explosion byproducts, and chemicals or substances other than explosives associated with military expended materials (e.g., metals, chemicals, and other materials). This analysis focuses on changes in the chemistry of substrate and water column that may adversely affect the quality of EFH for managed species. The impacts on managed species via sediment or water that do not require trophic transfer (e.g., bioaccumulation, predation) to be observed are considered here.
4.1.4.1 Explosives and Explosive Byproducts High-order explosions consume most of the explosive material, creating typical combustion products. In the case of Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX), 98 percent of the products are common seawater constituents and the remainder is rapidly diluted below threshold effect level (U.S. Department of the Navy 2008) (Table 4-14). Explosion byproducts associated with high-order detonations present no stressors to fish and invertebrates through sediment or water chemistry. Low-order detonations and unexploded ordnance present elevated likelihood of effects on fish or invertebrates. Deposition of undetonated explosive materials into the marine environment can be reasonably well estimated by the
4-47 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
known failure and low-order detonation rates of high explosives (Table 4-15). Undetonated explosives associated with ordnance disposal and mine clearance are collected after training is complete; therefore, potential impacts are assumed to be inconsequential and not detectable for these training and testing activities. The fish and invertebrates inhabiting EFH may be exposed by contact with the explosive, contact with contaminants in the EFH, and ingestion of contaminated sediments.
Table 4-14: Byproducts from the Underwater Detonation of a High Blast Explosive
Predicted Permissible Byproduct Concentration (mg/L) Concentration (mg/L) Aluminum oxide 0.4340 n/a Carbon 0.1430 n/a Carbon monoxide 0.0293 0.552 Ethane 0.0047 120 Carbon dioxide 0.0026 1.0 Ammonia 0.0023 0.092 Propane 0.0014 120 Hydrogen cyanide 0.0003 0.001 Methane 0.0001 120 Other compounds* < 0.0001 ─ * Other compounds include methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, acetylene, and phosphine. Predicted concentrations were well below permissible concentrations. Notes: “<” means “less than,” mg/L= milligram(s) per liter, n/a = not applicable
Table 4-15: Failure Rates and Low-Order Detonation Rates of Military Ordnance
Low-Order Detonation Ordnance Failure Rate (%) Rate (%) Guns/artillery 4.68 0.16 Hand grenades 1.78 ─ High explosive ordnance 3.37 0.09 Rockets 3.84 ─ Submunitions* 8.23 ─ * Submunitions are munitions contained within and distributed by another device such as a rocket.
Table 4-16 provides a list of ordnance constituents remaining after low-order detonations and with unconsumed explosives. These constituents are in addition to the high explosives contained in the ordnance. Lead azide, titanium compounds, perchlorates, barium chromate, and fulminate of mercury are not natural constituents of seawater. Lead oxide is a rare, naturally occurring mineral. It is one of several lead compounds that form films on lead objects in the marine environment (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 2007). Metals are discussed in Section 4.1.4.2.
4-48 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 4-16: Constituents Remaining After Low-Order Detonations and from Unconsumed Explosives
Ordnance Component Constituent
Pyrotechnics Barium chromate (BaCrO4) Tracers Potassium perchlorate Spotting Charges Chlorides Phosphorus Titanium compounds Oxidizers Lead (II) oxide (PbO)
Delay Elements BaCrO4 Potassium perchlorate Lead chromate Fuses Potassium perchlorate
Detonators Fulminate of mercury [Hg(CNO)2] Potassium perchlorate
Primers Lead azide [Pb(N3)2]
Indirect impacts of explosives byproducts and unexploded ordnance on fish and invertebrates via sediment is possible in the immediate vicinity of the ordnance. Degradation products of RDX are not toxic to marine organisms at realistic exposure levels (Rosen and Lotufo 2010). TNT and its degradation products impact developmental processes in fish and invertebrates and are acutely toxic to adults at concentrations similar to real-world exposures (Rosen and Lotufo 2007a, b; 2010). Relatively low solubility of most explosives and their degradation products means that concentrations of these contaminants in the marine environment are relatively low and readily diluted. Furthermore, while explosives and their degradation products were detectable in marine sediment approximately 6–12 in. (15–30 cm) away from degrading ordnance, the concentrations of these compounds were not statistically distinguishable from background beyond 3 and 6 ft. (1 and 2 m) from the degrading ordnance. Most explosives and explosive degradation products have very low solubility in sea water. This means that dissolution occurs extremely slowly, and harmful concentrations of explosives and degradation are not likely to accumulate except within confined spaces. Additionally, a low concentration of contaminants, slowly delivered into the water column, is readily diluted to non-harmful concentrations. Filter feeders (such as sessile invertebrates) in the immediate vicinity of degrading explosives may be more susceptible to bioaccumulation of contaminants. While invertebrates may be adversely impacted by the indirect effects of degrading explosives via water (Rosen and Lotufo 2007a, 2010), this is extremely unlikely in realistic scenarios.
Taken together, fish or invertebrates may be affected by the degrading explosives within a very small radius of the explosive 1–6 ft. (0.3–2 m). The area of substrate impacted is small and the explosive byproduct is minimal (would easily dissipate into the water column); therefore, the effects of explosives and explosive byproducts used are short-term and minimal on water column and substrate EFH.
4.1.4.2 Metals Certain metals and metal-containing compounds are harmful to fish and invertebrates at concentrations above background levels (e.g., cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc, copper, manganese, and many others) (Negri et al. 2002; Wang and Rainbow 2008). Metals are introduced into seawater and sediments as a result of training and testing activities involving vessel hulks, targets, ordnance, munitions, and other military expended material including batteries. In most instances, because of the
4-49 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
physical and chemical reactions that occur with metals in marine systems (e.g., precipitation), metals often concentrate in sediments. Thus, metal contaminants in sediments are more of an issue than metals in the water column. Many metals bioaccumulate and some physiological impacts begin to occur only after several trophic transfers concentrate the toxic metals. Impacts of metals on fish and invertebrates via sediment and water involve concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than concentrations achieved via bioaccumulation. Fish and invertebrates may be exposed by contact with the metal, contact with contaminants in the sediment or water, and ingestion of contaminated material.
Despite the acute toxicity of some metals (e.g., hexavalent chromium or tributyltin) (Negri et al. 2002), concentrations above safe limits are scarcely encountered even in live fire areas of the former Navy training range off Vieques, Puerto Rico, where deposition of metals from Navy activities is very high (Pait et al. 2010). Other studies find no harmful concentrations of metals associated with deposition of military metals into the marine environment (Buchman 2008). It is conceivable that fish or invertebrate eggs or larvae could be impacted by metals via sediment within a few inches of the object.
No adverse effect on EFH from metals is anticipated based on studies comparing metal contamination levels and levels considered safe. It is unlikely that fish or invertebrates will be adversely affected by the physiological effects of metals.
4.1.4.3 Chemicals Several Navy training and testing activities introduce potentially harmful chemicals into the marine environment, principally ship hulks (SINKEXs), flares and propellants for rockets, missiles, and torpedoes.
In the past, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been raised as a chemical pollutant issue because they have been found in certain solid materials on vessel hulks used as targets during vessel-SINKEXs (e.g., insulation, wires, felts, and rubber gaskets). Currently, vessels used for SINKEXs are selected from a list of Navy approved vessels that have been cleaned in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. By rule, a SINKEX must be conducted at least 50 nm offshore and in water at least 6,000 ft. (1,830 m) deep (40 C.F.R. 229.2). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that as much as 100 lb. (45 kg) of PCBs remain onboard sunken vessels. The agency considers the contaminant levels released during the sinking of a target to be within the standards of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1341, et seq.) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1999). Based on the foregoing considerations, PCBs will not be considered further.
Properly functioning flares, missiles, rockets, and torpedoes combust most of their propellants, leaving benign or readily diluted soluble combustion byproducts (e.g., hydrogen cyanide). Operational failures allow release of propellants and their degradation products into the marine environment. The greatest risk to fish and invertebrates from flares, missile, and rocket propellants is perchlorate, which is highly soluble in water, persistent, and impacts metabolic processes in many plants and animals. Perchlorate contamination rapidly disperses throughout the water column and water within sediments. While it impacts terrestrial biological processes at low concentrations (e.g., less than 10 parts per billion), toxic concentrations are unlikely to be encountered in seawater. The principal mode of perchlorate toxicity in the environment is bioaccumulation.
In contrast to perchlorate, the principal toxic components of torpedo fuel—propylene glycol dinitrate and nitrodiphenylamine—adsorb to sediments, have relatively low toxicity, and are readily degraded by biological processes. The MK-48 torpedo weighs roughly 3,700 lb. (1,680 kg) and uses Otto Fuel II as a liquid propellant. Otto Fuel II is composed of propylene glycol dinitrate and nitro-diphenylamine
4-50 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
(76 percent), dibutyl sebacate (23 percent) and 2-nitrodiphenylamine as a stabilizer (2 percent). Combustion byproducts of Otto Fuel II include nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide. During normal venting of excess pressure or upon failure of the torpedo's buoyancy bag, the following are discharged: carbon dioxide, water, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, methane, ammonia, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, potassium chloride, ferrous oxide, potassium hydroxide, and potassium carbonate (U.S. Department of the Navy 1996a, b).
It is conceivable that marine fish and invertebrate eggs, or larvae could be impacted by propellants via sediment in the immediate vicinity of the object (e.g., within a few inches), but these potential impacts would diminish rapidly as the propellant degrades. Fish and invertebrates may be exposed by contact with the chemicals, contact with chemical contaminants in the sediment or water, and ingestion of contaminated material.
No adverse effect on EFH from the chemicals discussed above is anticipated based on the rapid dispersal and degradation of the chemicals. It is unlikely that fish or invertebrates will be adversely affected by the physiological effects of chemicals other than explosives and explosive byproducts.
4.1.4.4 Other Materials All military expended material, including targets and vessel hulks involved in SINKEXs contains materials other than metals, explosives, or chemicals. Principal components of these military expended materials include aluminized fiberglass (chaff), carbon or Kevlar fiber (missiles), and plastics (canisters, targets, sonobuoy components, parachutes). Chaff has been extensively studied, and no indirect toxic effects are known at realistic concentrations in the marine environment (Arfsten et al. 2002). Glass, carbon, and Kevlar fibers are not known to have potential toxic effects on marine invertebrates. Plastics contain chemicals that have potential effects on fish and invertebrates (Derraik 2002; Mato et al. 2001; Teuten et al. 2007).
Potentially harmful chemicals in plastics are not readily adsorbed to marine sediments; instead, fish and invertebrates are most at risk via ingestion or bioaccumulation. Because plastics retain many of their chemical properties as they physically degrade into plastic particles (Singh and Sharma 2008), the exposure risks to marine fish and invertebrates are dispersed over time. Additionally, plastic waste in the ocean chemically attracts hydrocarbon pollutants such as PCB and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, which accumulate up to 1 million times more in plastic than in ocean water (Takada et al. 2001). It is conceivable that marine fish and invertebrates could be indirectly impacted by chemicals associated with plastics, but, absent bioaccumulation, these effects would be limited to direct contact with the material.
Marine invertebrates and fish may be exposed by contact with the plastic, contact with associated plastic chemical contaminants in the sediment or water, and ingestion of contaminated material.
No adverse effect on EFH from these materials (e.g., plastics) is anticipated because they are not readily adsorbed to marine sediments and direct contact is required for harmful effects to organisms. It is unlikely that fish or invertebrates will be adversely impacted by the physiological effects of other materials.
4-51 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
4.1.5 STUDY AREA COMBINED IMPACT OF STRESSORS Of all the potential stressors, only explosives on or near the bottom and military expended materials have the potential to adversely impact marine habitats as a substrate for biological communities. The impact area for underwater explosions and military expended materials were all much less than 1 percent of the total area of documented soft bottom or hard bottom in the Study Area. The percentages are even lower for substrate impacts in the Study Area as a whole (Table 4-17). Even multiplying by 5 years, the impacts are all less than 1 percent of the benthic substrate with very unlikely worst case scenarios.
Table 4-17: Combined Impact on Marine Substrates from the Proposed Action
Impact Footprint (m2) Military Expended Underwater Explosions Total Materials 2,024 156,745 158,769 Note: m2 = square meters
Chapter 5 (Mitigation Measures) describes standard operating procedures (SOPs) and mitigation measures proposed to help reduce the potential impacts of explosives on or near the bottom and military expended materials on marine substrates and associated biogenic habitats.
4-52 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
5 MITIGATION MEASURES This section describes the Navy’s SOPs and mitigation measures. Many of these measures also help reduce or avoid potential impacts to EFH or HAPCs.
5.1 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES The Navy currently employs standard practices to provide for the safety of personnel and equipment, including ships and aircraft, as well as the success of the training and testing activities. For the purpose of this document, we will refer to standard practices as SOPs. Because of their importance for maintaining safety and mission success, SOPs have been considered as part of the Proposed Action. The only SOPs specifically designed to reduce or avoid EFH are for towed in-water devices and amphibious landings. Prior to deploying a towed device, there is a standard operating procedure to search the intended path of the device for any floating debris (e.g., driftwood) or other potential obstructions (e.g., animals), since they have the potential to cause damage to the device. Prior to any amphibious over-the- beach training activity conducted with larger amphibious vehicles such as LCACs or AAVs (e.g., Amphibious Assaults), a hydrographic survey and a beach survey would be required. The surveys would be conducted to identify and designate boat lanes and beach landing areas that are clear of coral, hard bottom substrate, and obstructions. LCAC landing and departure activities would be scheduled at high tide. In addition, LCACs would stay fully on cushion or hover when over shallow reef to avoid corals and hard bottom substrate. Over-the-beach amphibious activity would only occur within designated areas based on the hydrographic and beach surveys. Similarly, AAV activities would only be scheduled within designated boat lanes and beach landing areas and would conduct their beach landings and departures at high tide one vehicle at a time within their designated boat lane (COMNAVMAR Instruction 3500.4A). Based on the surveys, if the beach landing area and boat lane is clear, the activity could be conducted, and crews would follow procedures to avoid obstructions to navigation, including coral reefs; however, if there is any potential for impacts on corals or hard bottom substrate, the Navy will coordinate with applicable resource agencies before conducting the activity. Hydrographic and beach surveys would not be necessary for beach landings with small boats, such as RHIBs.
5.2 MITIGATION MEASURES The Navy recognizes that the Proposed Action has the potential to impact EFH or HAPCs. Unlike SOPs, which are established for reasons other than environmental benefit, mitigation measures are modifications to the Proposed Action that are implemented for the sole purpose of reducing a specific potential environmental impact on a particular resource. The procedures discussed in this chapter, most of which are currently or were previously implemented as a result of formal or informal consultations with regulatory agencies during the MIRC EIS/OEIS and MITT EIS/OEIS process.
The mitigation measures fall under two categories: Lookouts and mitigation zones. The Lookouts on Navy vessels are trained to identify marine mammals, sea turtles, and floating macroalgae and to avoid physical impacts where possible; target areas should be clear of marine species. Mitigation zones are buffer areas between potential impacts and observed marine life on the surface or mapped on the bottom. The mitigation measures presented below (Table 5-1) were developed for training and testing activities in the MITT Study Area. While these mitigation measures were implemented as a result of potential impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles, they may indirectly benefit EFH and HAPCs. Those that have designated stand offs from benthic habitats will have a direct positive impact on EFH and HAPCs.
5-1 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 5-1: Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures
Recommended Activity Category or Recommended Mitigation Indirect or Direct Lookout Procedural Mitigation Area Zone and Protection Focus Beneficial Effects on EFH Measure Acoustic (Non-Impulsive Stressors) Low-Frequency and Hull- Low-Frequency: 200 yd. Mounted Mid-Frequency (183 m) shutdown for marine Active Sonar during Anti- mammals and sea turtles 2 Lookouts (general) Submarine Warfare and Mine Warfare 1 Lookout (minimally Hull-Mounted Mid-Frequency: Indirect manned, moored, or 1,000 yd. (914 m) and 500 anchored) yd. (457 m) power downs and 200 yd. (183 m) shutdown for marine mammals and sea turtles. Recommended Activity Category or Recommended Mitigation Indirect or Direct Lookout Procedural Mitigation Area Zone and Protection Focus Beneficial Effects on EFH Measure Acoustic (Explosive/Impulsive Stressors) Improved Extended Echo 600 yd. (549 m) for marine 1 Lookout Indirect Ranging Sonobuoys mammals and sea turtles. Explosive Sonobuoys 350 yd. (320 m) for marine 1 Lookout Indirect using 0.6–2.5 lb. NEW mammals and sea turtles. 200 yd. (183 m) for marine Anti-Swimmer Grenades 1 Lookout Indirect mammals and sea turtles. Mine Countermeasures General: 1 or 2 and Mine Neutralization Lookouts (NEW using Positive Control dependent) Firing Devices Diver-placed: 2 NEW dependent for marine Lookouts mammals and sea turtles and Indirect Lookouts will survey flocks of seabirds. the mitigation zone for seabirds prior to and after the detonation event. Mine Neutralization 4 Lookouts Activities Using Diver- Lookouts will survey Up to 10 min. time-delay Placed Time-Delay Firing using up to 29 lb. NEW: the mitigation zone for Indirect Devices seabirds prior to and 1,000 yd. (915 m) for marine after the detonation mammals and sea turtles. event. Gunnery Exercises – Small- and Medium- 200 yd. (183 m) for marine 1 Lookout Indirect Caliber using a Surface mammals and sea turtles. Target Gunnery Exercises – 600 yd. (549 m) for marine Large-Caliber using a mammals and sea turtles. Surface Target 1 Lookout 70 yd. (64 m) within 30 Indirect degrees on either side of the gun target line on the firing side for marine mammals and sea turtles.
5-2 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 5-1: Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures (continued)
Recommended Activity Category or Recommended Mitigation Indirect or Direct Lookout Procedural Mitigation Area Zone and Protection Focus Beneficial Effects on EFH Measure Missile Exercises 900 yd. (823 m) for marine (Including Rockets) up to mammals and sea turtles. 250 lb. NEW using a 1 Lookout Direct Surface Target 350 yd. (320 m) for surveyed shallow coral reefs. Missile Exercises 2,000 yd. (1.8 km) for marine (Including Rockets) from mammals and sea turtles. 251 to 500 lb. NEW using 1 Lookout Direct a Surface Target 350 yd. (320 m) for surveyed shallow coral reefs. Bombing Exercises, Explosive: 2,500 yd. (2.3 km) Explosive and Non- for marine mammals and sea Explosive turtles.
Non-Explosive: 1,000 yd. 1 Lookout Direct (914 m) for marine mammals and sea turtles.
Both: 350 yd. (320 m) for surveyed shallow coral reefs. Torpedo (Explosive) 2,100 yd. (1.9 km) for marine Testing 1 Lookout mammals and sea turtles Indirect and jellyfish aggregations. Sinking Exercises 2.5 nm for marine mammals 2 Lookouts and sea turtles and jellyfish Indirect aggregations. At-Sea Explosive Testing 1,600 yd. (1.4 km) for marine 1 Lookout Indirect mammals and sea turtles. Physical Strike and Disturbance Vessel Movements 500 yd. (457 m) for whales.
1 Lookout 200 yd. (183 m) for all other Indirect marine mammals (except bow riding dolphins). Towed In-Water Device 250 yd. (229 m) for marine 1 Lookout Indirect Use mammals Precision Anchoring Avoidance of precision No Lookouts in anchoring within the anchor addition to standard swing diameter of shallow Direct personnel standing coral reefs, live hardbottom, watch artificial reefs, and shipwrecks.
5-3 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 5-1: Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures (continued)
Recommended Recommended Mitigation Indirect or Direct Activity Category or Lookout Procedural Zone and Protection Beneficial Effects on Mitigation Area Measure Focus EFH Shallow Coral Reefs, The Navy will not conduct Hardbottom Habitat, precision anchoring within Artificial Reefs, and the anchor swing diameter, Shipwrecks or explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities (except in existing anchorages and near-shore training areas around Guam and within Apra Harbor) within 350 yd. (320 m) of surveyed shallow coral No Lookouts in addition reefs, live hardbottom, to standard personnel artificial reefs, and Direct standing watch shipwrecks. No explosive or non- explosive small-, medium-, and large-caliber gunnery exercises using a surface target, explosive or non- explosive missile exercises using a surface target, explosive and non-explosive bombing exercises, or at-sea explosive testing within 350 yd. (320 m) of surveyed shallow coral reefs Notes: EFH = Essential Fish Habitat, NEW = Net Explosive Weight, lb. = pounds, yd. = yards, m = meters, km = kilometers
The mitigation zones for seafloor habitats and shipwrecks address precision anchoring, explosive mine countermeasures and neutralization activities, and other activities involving explosive or non-explosive munitions. The Navy will not conduct the following activities within 350 yd. (320 m) of known surveyed shallow coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks: explosive or non-explosive small, medium, and large caliber GUNEXs using a surface target; explosive missile exercises using a surface target; explosive and non-explosive bombing exercises; or at-sea explosives testing. The Navy will not conduct precision anchoring within the anchor watch circle diameter, or explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities near known surveyed shallow coral reefs, live hardbottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks. To facilitate these protective measures, the Navy will include maps of known shallow coral reefs, artificial reefs, shipwrecks, and live hard bottom during planning of training and testing events.
The Navy’s currently implemented seafloor habitats and shipwreck mitigation zones are based off the range to effects for marine mammals or sea turtles, which are driven by hearing thresholds. The recommended measures are modified to focus on reducing potential physical impacts to seafloor habitats and shipwrecks from explosives, and physical strike from military expended materials. The recommended 350 yd. (320 m) mitigation zone is based off the estimated maximum crater impact for explosions discussed in Section 4.1.1.2.1 (Explosives). The use of non-explosive military expended materials would result in a smaller footprint of potential impact; however, the Navy recommends applying the explosive mitigation zone to all explosive and non-explosive activities as listed above for
5-4 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
ease of implementation. This standard mitigation zone will consequently result in an additional protection buffer during the non-explosive activities listed above. Avoiding or minimizing physical disturbance and strike of these resources will likely reduce the impact on these resources.
The Navy proposes implementing the recommended measures described above because: (1) they are likely to result in avoidance or reduction of physical disturbance and strike to sensitive habitats and shipwrecks; and (2) they have acceptable operational impacts to the proposed activity with regard to safety, practicability, impact to readiness, and Navy policy.
5-5 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
5-6 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
6 CONCLUSIONS The potential impacts from the Proposed Action on EFH and HAPC among the Fishery Management Council region did not exceed a determination of minimal. Refer to relevant sections for supporting details for each conclusion. The individual stressor impacts were all either no effect or minimal and ranged in duration from temporary to permanent, depending on the habitat impacted (Table 6-1).
Table 6-1: Potential Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat from Each Stressor
Stressors Water Column Substrate Biogenic Acoustic stressors (Section 4.1.1) Non-impulsive Minimal and temporary No effect No effect • Sonar • Vessel noise Explosive and other Minimal and temporary Minimal and short term (soft • Attached macroalgae: impulsive bottom) to permanent (hard minimal and long term based • Underwater bottom); mitigation avoids on hard substrate impacts explosions mapped hard bottom. • Submerged rooted • Swimmer vegetation: minimal and long- defense airguns term • Weapons firing, • Sedentary invertebrate beds: launch, and minimal and short term to impact noise permanent (based on substrate impacts); mitigation avoids mapped hard bottom • Reefs: minimal and long term; mitigation avoids coral reefs Energy stressors (Section 4.1.2) Electromagnetic Less than minimal and No effect No effect devices temporary Physical disturbance and strike stressors (Section 4.1.3) Vessel movement No effect No effect No effect In-water devices No effect No effect Biogenic habitats: no effect; mitigation avoids sensitive nearshore habitats
6-1 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table 6-1: Potential Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern from Each Stressor (continued)
Stressors Water Column Substrate Biogenic Physical disturbance and strike stressors (Section 4.1.3) (continued) Military expended Minimal and temporary Minimal and long term to • Attached macroalgae: Minimal materials permanent and short term; • Submerged rooted vegetation; minimal and short term; • Sedentary invertebrate beds: minimal and long term to permanent (based on substrate impacts) • Reefs: minimal and long term; mitigation avoids shallow coral reefs Seafloor devices No effect Minimal and temporary (soft Minimal and temporary bottom) No effect (hard bottom) Contaminant stressors (Section 4.1.4) Explosives and Minimal and short term Minimal and short term • Sedentary invertebrate beds explosive byproducts and reefs: Minimal and short term; mitigation avoids shallow coral reefs • Other biogenic habitats: no effect Metals No effect No effect No effect Chemicals No effect No effect No effect Other materials No effect No effect No effect Note: HAPC = Habitat Area of Particular Concern
Pursuant to the EFH requirements of the MSA and implementing regulations, explosives on or near the bottom and military expended materials may adversely affect EFH or HAPC at a minimal level, for variable (habitat dependent) duration (refer to Section 4.1.5, Study Area Combined Impact of Stressors, for analysis). The mitigation measures (see Table 5-1) should reduce the minimal potential impact from permanent (e.g., hard bottom, submerged rooted vegetation, reefs) to short term (e.g., soft bottom,) for explosives on or near the bottom and military expended materials deposited in nearshore and shallow offshore habitats.
6-2 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
7 REFERENCES Chapter 1
U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013). Mariana Islands Training and Testing Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 2
Rosen, G. and G. R. Lotufo. (2010). "Fate and effects of Composition B in multispecies marine exposures." Environ Toxicol Chem 29(6): 1330-1337. U.S. Department of the Navy (2013). Mariana Islands Range Complex Airspace Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment. Chapter 3
Abraham, T., M. Beger, D. Burdick, E. Cochrane, P. Craig, G. Didonato, D. Fenner, A. Green, Y. Golbuu, J. Gutierrez, M. Hasurmai, C. Hawkins, P. Houk, D. Idip, D. Jacobson, E. Joseph, T. Keju, J. Kuartei, S. Palik, L. Penland, S. Pinca, K. Rikim, J. Starmer, M. S. Trianni, S. Victor and L. Whaylen. (2004). Status of the coral Reefs in Micronesia and American Samoa. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004. R. Kelty and J. Kuartei: 381–409. Aburto-Oropeza, O., E. Ezcurra, G. Danemann, V. Valdez, J. Murray and E. Sala. (2008). "Mangroves in the Gulf of California increase fishery yields." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(30): 10456–10459. Bhattarai, B. and C. Giri. (2011). Assessment of mangrove forests in the Pacific region using Landsat imagery. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing 5. Biber, P. D., C. L. Gallegos and W. J. Kenworthy. (2007). "Calibration of a Bio-optical Model in the North River, North Carolina (Albemarle–Pamlico Sound): A Tool to Evaluate Water Quality Impacts on Seagrasses." Estuaries and Coasts 31(1): 177–191. Birkeland, C. (1997). Status of coral reefs in the Marianas. Pages 91-100 in R.W. Grigg, and C. Birkeland, eds. Status of Coral Reefs in the Pacific. Honolulu, Hawaii: Sea Grant College Program, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii. Bouillon, S. (2009). The management of natural coastal carbon sinks. D. D. A. Laffoley and G. Grimsditch. Brown, B. E. (1997). "Coral bleaching: causes and consequences." Coral Reefs 16 Supplement: S129– S138. Carilli, J. E., R. D. Norris, B. Black, S. M. Walsh and M. McField. (2010). "Century-scale records of coral growth rates indicate that local stressors reduce coral thermal tolerance threshold." Global Change Biology 16(4): 1247–1257. Carrell, T., D. Boyer, R. Davi, M. G. Driver, K. Foster, D. J. Lenihan, D. T. Lotz, T. B. McGrath, J. E. Miculka and T. Rock. (1991). Micronesia Submerged Cultural Resources Assessment, Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Southwest Region, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers No. 36. Santa Fe, New Mexico. Castro, C. and M. E. Huber. (2007). Chemical and physical features of seawater and the world Ocean. In. Marine Biology. New York, NY, McGraw-Hill: 45–68.
7-1 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Castro, P. and M. E. Huber. (2000). Marine prokaryotes, protists, fungi, and plants. In. Marine Biology, McGraw-Hill: 83–103. Chapman, L. (2004). Nearshore Domestic Fisheries Development in Pacific Island Countries and Territories. S. o. t. P. Community. New Caledonia: 254. Coale, K. H., K. S. Johnson, S. E. Fitzwater, S. P. G. Blain, T. P. Stanton and T. L. Coley. (1998). "IronEx-I, an in situ iron-enrichment experiment: Experimental design, implementation and results." Deep-Sea Research II 45: 919-945. Coale, K. H., K. S. Johnson, S. E. Fitzwater, R. M. Gordon, S. Tanner, F. P. Chavez, L. Feroli, C. Sakamoto, P. Rogers, F. J. Millero, P. Steinberg, P. Nightingale, D. Cooper, W. P. Cochlan, M. R. Landry, J. Constantinou, G. Rollwagen, A. Trasvina and R. Kudela. (1996). "A massive phytoplankton bloom induced by an ecosystem-scale iron fertilization experiment in the Equatorial Pacific." Nature 383: 495-501. Cohen, A. L., D. C. McCorkle, S. de Putron, G. A. Gaetani and K. A. Rose. (2009). "Morphological and compositional changes in the skeletons of new coral recruits reared in acidified seawater: Insights into the biomineralization response to ocean acidification." Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 10(7): 1-12. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. (2001, July 17, 2001). "Shipwrecks, Groundings, Marine Debris and Dredging." Retrieved June 13, 2005, from www.crm.gov.mp. Cowardin, L. M., F. C. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. (1979). Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C., Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. Daniel, R. and D. Minton. (2004). Inventory and monitoring program Pacific Island Network Monitoring Plan - Appendix A: Marine Report, National Parks Service. Davis, A. R. (2009). The role of mineral, living and artificial substrata in the development of subtidal assemblages. In. Marine Hardbottom Communities: Patterns, Dynamics, Diversity and Change. M. Wahl. New York, NY, Springer-Verlag. 206: 19-37. Dawes, C. J. (1998). Marine Botany. New York, NY, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Department of the Navy (DoN). (2004). Year 2003 assessment of marine and fisheries resources-Farallon de Medinilla, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Final report. Submitted to Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, under contract no. N62742- 02-D-1802, DO 002, by the Environmental Company, Honolulu, Hawaii. Department of the Navy (DoN). (2005). Marine Resources Assessment for the Marianas Operations Area. Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Contract #N62470-02- D-9997, CTO 0027. Prepared by Geo-Marine, Inc., Plano, Texas. Department of the Navy (DoN). (2007). Overseas Environmental Assessment. Surface Routine Training Exercises in East and Gulf Coast Operation Areas and Seaward. January 2007. Downs, C. A., E. Kramarsky-Winter, C. M. Woodley, A. Downs, G. Winters, Y. Loya and G. K. Ostrander. (2009). "Cellular pathology and histopathology of hypo-salinity exposure on the coral Stylophora pistillata." Science of the Total Environment 407(17): 4838-4851. Eldredge, L. G. (1979). Marine Biological Resources within the Guam Seashore Study Area and the War in the Pacific National Historical Park, University of Guam Marine Laboratory.
7-2 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Eldredge, L. G. (1983). Summary of Environmental and Fishing Information on Guam and theCommonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Historical Backgroun, Description of the Islands, and Review of the Climate, Oceanography, and Submarine Topography, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center: 191. Eldredge, L. G., R. Dickinson and S. Moras. (1977). Marine survey of Agat Bay. Mangilao, Guam, University of Guam Marine Laboratory. Embley, R. W., E. T. Baker, W. W. Chadwick Jr., J. E. Lupton, J. A. Resing, G. J. Massoth and K. Nakamura. (2004). "Explorations of Mariana Arc Volcanoes Review New Hydrothermal Systems." EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 85(4): 37-44. The Environmental Company. (2004). Year 2003 Assessment of Marine and Fisheries Resources, Farallon de Medinilla, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands [Final report]. (pp. 46). Honolulu, HI. Prepared for Pacific Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Environmental Services Duenas & Associates, I. (1997). Saipan Lagoon Use Management Plan, Survey of Sea Cucumbers and Fish in the Saipan Lagoon, Northern Mariana Islands: 57. Federal Geographic Data Committee. (2012). Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard. Marine and Coastal Spatial Data Subcommittee. FGDC-STD-018-2012. Fonseca, M. S., W. J. Kenworthy and G. W. Thayer (1998). Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters. Silver Spring, Maryland, NOAA Coastal Ocean Office: 222. Fox, H. E. and R. L. Caldwell. (2006). "Recovery From Blast Fishing On Coral Reefs: A Tale of Two Scales." Ecological Applications 16(5): 1631–1635. Garrison, T. (1998). Seawater chemistry. In. Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Publishing Company: 138-153. Garrison, T. (2004). Essentials of Oceanography. Pacific Grove, CA, Brooks/Cole-Thomas Learning. Gaspin, J. B., Wiley, M. L. & Peters, G. B. (1976). Experimental investigations of the effects of underwater explosions on swimbladder fish, II: 1975 Chesapeake Bay tests. White Oak Laboratory. Silver Spring, Maryland. (document number) NSWC/WOL/TR 76-61. Glynn, P. W. (1993). "Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives." Coral Reefs 12(1): 1-17. Guam Department of Agriculture Division of Aquatic and Wildlife. (2004). Sport Fish Restoration FAD Locations. Guam Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources. (2005). Guam Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (GCWCS). Page 61. Mangilao, Guam. Heck, K. L., Jr., G. Hays and R. J. Orth. (2003). "Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass meadows." Marine Ecology Progress Series 253: 123-136. Hessler, R. R. and P. F. Lonsdale. (1991). "Biogeography of Mariana Trough hydrothermal vent communities." Deep Sea Research 38(2): 185-199. Hogarth, P. J. (1999). The Biology of Mangroves. New York, New York, Oxford University Press: 228. Holland, K. T. and P. A. Elmore. (2008). "A review of heterogeneous sediments in coastal environments." Earth-Science Reviews 89(3-4): 116-134.
7-3 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Humphris, S. E. (1995). Hydrothermal processes at mid-ocean ridges. Reviews of Geophysics Supplement, Vol. 33. 33. Hunter, E., Chant, R., Bowers, L., Glenn, S., Kohut, J. (2007). "Spatial and temporal variability of diurnal wind forcing in the coastal ocean." Geophysical Research Letters 34(3): L03607. Karleskint, G., R. Turner and J. W. Small, Jr. (2006). Introduction to Marine Biology. Belmont, CA, Thomson Brooks/Cole: 460. Kemp, W. M., R. Batiuk, R. Bartleson, P. Bergstrom, V. Carter, C. Gallegos, W. Hunley, L. Karrh, E. W. Koch, J. Landwehr, K. Moore, L. Murray, M. Naylor, N. Rybicki, J. C. Stevenson and D. Wilcox. (2004). "Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: water quality, light regime, and physical-chemical factors." Estuaries 27: 263-377. Kennedy, J. (2012). "Red Algae (Rhodophyta)." About.com Mainre Life from http://marinelife.about.com/od/plants/p/redalgae.htm. Kennett, J. P. (1982). Marine Geology. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Kojima, S. (2002). "Deep-Sea Chemoautosynthesis-Based Communities in the Northwestern Pacific." Journal of Oceanography 58: 343-363. Kolinski, S. P., D. M. Parker, L. I. Ilo and J. K. Ruak. (2001). "An Assessment of the Sea Turtles and Their Marine and Terrestrial Habitats at Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands." Micronesica 34(1): 55-72. Laegdsgaard, P. and C. R. Johnson. (1995). "Mangrove habitats as nurseries: unique assemblages of juvenile fish in subtropical mangroves in eastern Australia." Marine Ecology Progress Series 126: 67- 81. Lalli, C. M. and T. R. Parsons. (1993). Biological Oceanography: An Introduction. Vancouver, Canada, University of British Columbia. Lalli, C. M. and T. R. Parsons. (1997). Biological Oceanography: An Introduction. Vancouver, Canada, University of British Columbia. Langmann, B., K. Zaksek, M. Hort and S. Duggen. (2010). "Volcanic ash as fertiliser for the surface ocean." Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 10: 3891-3899. Libes, S. M. (1992). An Introduction to Marine Biogeochemistry. New York, NY, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: 734. Lobban, C. S. and R. T. Tsuda. (2003). "Revised checklist of benthic marine macroalgae and seagrasses of Guam and Micronesia." Micronesica 35-36: 54-99. Lotz, D. (1998). World War II Remnants: Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, A Guide and History. Guam, Making Tracks. Mach, K. J., B. B. Hale, M. W. Denny and D. V. Nelson. (2007). "Death by small forces: a fracture and fatigue analysis of wave-swept macroalgae." Journal of Experimental Biology 210(13). Madden, C. J., K. Goodin, R. J. Allee, G. Cicchetti, C. Moses, M. Finkbeiner and D. Bamford. (2009). Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard - Version III, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NatureServe. The Mariana Trench - Biology - Part 1. (2003). The Mariana Trench - Biology - Part 1. 2005.
7-4 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Martin, J. H. and M. R. Gordon. (1988). "Northeast Pacific iron distributions in relation to phytoplankton productivity." Deep-Sea Research 35(2): 177-196. Minton, D., Brown, V., Dugger, K., Flores, T., Foster, K., Houk, P., Iguel, J., Kessler, C., Kolinski, S., Schiles, T., Starmer, J., Suhraj, N., Tenorio, M., Tranni, M. (2009). Marine Resource Surveys of Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Mitsch, W. J., J. G. Gosselink, C. J. Anderson and L. Zhang. (2009). Wetland Ecosystems. Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 295. Moffitt, R.B., and J. J. Polovina. (1987). Distribution and Yield of the Deepwater Shrimp Heterocarpus Resource in the Marianas. Fishery Bulletin. Vol. 85 No. 2. Moffitt, R.B. (1993). Deepwater demersal fish. Pages 73-95 in A. Wright and L. Hill, eds. Nearshore marine resources of the South Pacific. Honiara, Solomon Islands: Forum Fisheries Agency; Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies; and Canada: International Centre for Ocean Development. Moffitt, R.B., and F.A. Parrish. (1996). Habitat and life history of juvenile Hawaiian pink snapper, Pristipomoides filamentosus. Pacific Science 50(4):371-381. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2005). Shallow-water bethic habitats of American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. National Marine Fisheries Service. (2002). Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions; Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)-Final rule. Federal Register. 67: 2343-2383. National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010). "Deep Sea Corals." Retrieved September 2010, from http://www.oar.noaa.gov/oceans/t_deepseacorals.html. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2007). National Artificial Reef Plan (as Amended): Guidelines for siting, construction, development, and assessment of artifical reefs: 61. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2009). National Oceanographic Data Center. Nybakken, J. W. (1993). Marine Biology, an Ecological Approach. New York, NY, Harper Collins College Publishers. Pacific Basin Environmental Consultants, I. (1985). CNMI Marine Parks Management Plan. Pacific Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment Program. (2012). Places: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Pacific RISA Managing Climate Risk in the Pacific. 2012. Paulay, G. (2003). "Marine biodiversity of Guam and the Marianas: overview." Micronesica 35-36: 3-25. Paulay, G., L. Kirkendale, G. Lambert, and J. Starmer. 1997. The biodiversity of Apra Harbor: Significant areas and introduced species, with focus on sponges, echinoderms and ascidians. Prepared for U.S. Department of Defense, COMNAVMARIANAS, University of Guam Marine Laboratory, Mangilao, Guam. Paulay, G., L. Kirkendale, G. Lambert and C. Meyer. (2002). "Anthropogenic Biotic Interchange in a Coral Reef Ecosystem: A Case Study from Guam." Pacific Science 56(4): 403-422. Paulay, G., M.P. Puglisi, and J.A. Starmer. (2003). " The non-scleractinian Anthozoa (Cnidaria) of the Mariana Islands." Micronesica 35-36: 138-155. Phillips, R. C. and E. G. Meñez. (1988). "Seagrasses." Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences 34: 104.
7-5 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Pickard, G. L. and W. J. Emery (1990). Descriptive Physical Oceanography: An Introduction. Oxford, Pergamon Press. Quinn, N.J., and B.L. Kojis. 2003. The dynamics of coral reef community structure and recruitment patterns around Rota, Saipan, and Tinian, Western Pacific. Bulletin of Marine Science 72(3):979-996. Randall, R. H. (1985). Habitat Geomorphology and Community Structure of Corals in the Mariana Islands. Fifth International Coral Reef Congress, Tahiti. Randall, R. H. (1995). "Biogeography of Reef-Building Corals in the Mariana and Palau Islands in Relation to Back-Arc Rifting and the Formation of the Eastern Philippine Sea." Nat. Hist. Res. 3(2): 193-210. Randall, R. H. (2003). "An annotated checklist of hydrozoan and scleractinian corals collected from Guam and other Mariana Islands." Micronesica 35-36: 121-137. Randall, R. H., H. G. Siegrist Jr. and A. W. Siegrist. (1984). "Community Structure of Reef-Building Corals on a Recently Raised Holocene Reef on Guam, Mariana Islands." Palaeontographica Americana 54: 394-398. Richmond, R.H. 1994. Effects of coastal runoff on coral reproduction. Pages 360-364 in R.N. Ginzburg, ed. Proceedings on the Colloquium on Global Aspects of Coral Reefs: Health, Hazards, and History. Miami, Florida: University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. Richmond, R.H., and G.W. Davis. 2002. Status of the coral reefs of Guam. Pages 189-194 in D.D. Turgeon, R.G. Asch, B.D. Causey, R.E. Dodge, W. Jaap, K. Banks, J. Delaney, B.D. Keller, R. Speiler, C.A. Matos, J.R. Garcia, E. Diaz, D. Catanzaro, C.S. Rogers, Z. Hillis-Starr, R. Nemeth, M. Taylor, G.P. Schmahl, M.W. Miller, D.A. Gulko, J.E. Maragos, A.M. Friedlander, C.L. Hunter, R.S. Brainard, P. Craig, R.H. Richmond, G. Davis, J. Starmer, M. Trianni, P. Houk, C.E. Birkeland, A. Edward, Y. Golbuu, J. Gutierrez, N. Idechong, G. Paulay, A. Tafileichig, and N. Vander Velde. 2002. The state of coral reef ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2002. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Service/National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. Riegl, B., R.P. Moyer, B.K. Walker, K. Kohler, D. Gilliam, and R.E. Dodge. 2008. A Tale of Germs, Storms, and Bombs: Geomorphology and Coral Assemblage Structure at Vieques (Puerto Rico) Compared to St. Croix (U.S. Virgin Islands). Journal of Coastal Research 24 (4): 1008-1021. Roach, J. (2004). Mangroves are nursuries for reef rish, study finds. National Geographic News. Rogers, A. D. (1994). "The biology of seamounts." Advances in Marine Biology 30: 305-350. Rosen, G. and G. R. Lotufo. (2010). "Fate and effects of Composition B in multispecies marine exposures." Environ Toxicol Chem 29(6): 1330-1337. Ruwa, R. K. (1996). Intertidal wetlands. In East African Ecosystems and Their Conservation. T. R. McClanahan and T. P. Young. New York, New York, Oxford University Press: 101-130. Scott, D. A. (1993). A Directory of Wetlands in Oceania, Wetlands International. 2005. Smith, S.H. (2004). March 2004 ecological assessment of the marine community in the vicinity of Kilo Wharf, Apra Harbor, Guam. Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific. Smith, S.H. (2007). Ecological assessment of stony corals and associated organisms in the eastern portion of Apra Harbor, Guam. Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific.
7-6 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Smith, S.H., Marx, D.E., and Shannon, L.H. (2013). Calendar Year 2012 Assessment of Near Shore Marine Resources at Farallon de Medinilla, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Prepared for Pacific Fleet Environmental. Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (1995). Volcanic activity report: Ruby. In Bulletin of the Global Volcanism Network. [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/central_pacific/marianas/gvn/marianas.v20n10.html, 6 January 2005. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (1998). Final habitat plan for the South Atlantic region: Essential fish habitat requirements for fishery management plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Charleston, SC, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Spalding, M., M. Taylor, C. Ravilious, F. Short and E. Green. (2003). Global overview: The distribution and status of seagrasses. In. World Atlas of Seagrasses. E. P. Green and F. T. Short. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press: 5-26. Speybroeck, J., D. Bonte, W. Courtens, T. Gheskiere, P. Grootaert, J. P. Maelfait, S. Provoost, K. Sabbe, E. W. M. Stienen, V. Van Lancker, W. Van Landuyt, M. Vincx and S. Degraer. (2008). "The Belgian sandy beach ecosystem: a review." Marine Ecology-an Evolutionary Perspective 29(Supplement 1): 171- 185. Starmer, J., M.S. Trianni, and P. Houk. 2002. Status of coral reefs in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Pages 195-204 in D.D. Turgeon, R.G. Asch, B.D. Causey, R.E. Dodge, W. Jaap, K. Banks, J. Delaney, B.D. Keller, R. Speiler, C.A. Matos, J.R. Garcia, E. Diaz, D. Catanzaro, C.S. Rogers, Z. Hillis-Starr, R. Nemeth, M. Taylor, G.P. Schmahl, M.W. Miller, D.A. Gulko, J.E. Maragos, A.M. Friedlander, C.L. Hunter, R.S. Brainard, P. Craig, R.H. Richmond, G. Davis, J. Starmer, M. Trianni, P. Houk, C.E. Birkeland, A. Edward, Y. Golbuu, J. Gutierrez, N. Idechong, G. Paulay, A. Tafileichig, and N. Vander Velde. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2002. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. Starmer, J., J. Asher, F. Castro, D. Gochfeld, J. Gove, A. Hall, P. Houk, E. Keenan, J. Miller, R. Moffit, M. Nadon, R. Schroeder, E. Smith, M. Trianni, P. Vroom, K. Wong and K. Yuknavage. (2005). "The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands." The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Starmer, J., J. Asher, F. Castro, D. Gochfeld, J. Gove, A. Hall, P. Houk, E. Keenan, J. Miller, R. Moffit, M. Nadon, R. Schroeder, E. Smith, M. Trianni, P. Vroom, K. Wong and K. Yuknavage. (2008). The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. NOAA. In: J. Waddell (ed.), The State of the Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008. Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Biogeography Team. Stuben, D., S. H. Bloomer, N. E. Taibi, T. Neumann, V. Bendel, U. Puschel, A. Barone, A. Lange, W. Shiying, L. Cuizhong and Z. Deyu. (1992). "First results of study of sulphur-rich hydrothermal activity from an island-arc environment: Esmeralda Bank in the Mariana Arc." Marine Geology 103: 521-528. Takada, H., Mato, Y., Endo, S., Yamashita, R., and Zakaria, M. (2001). Pellet Watch: Global Monitoring of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) using Beached Plastic Resin Pellets. Accessed on March 18, 2014 from http://www.pelletwatch.org/documents/takadaproceeding.pdf. Thompson, P. L. (2002). 76th SEABEES of World War II. 76th Bees - An Untold Story.
7-7 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Thurman, H. V. (1997). Primary productivity. In. Introductory Oceanography. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall: 377-378. Tomczak, M. and J. S. Godfrey. (2005). The Pacific Ocean. In. Regional Oceanography: An Introduction, Pergamon. Tsuda, R. T. (2009). Seaweeds Overview. 2011. Tsuda, R. T., F. R. Fosberg and M. H. Sachet. (1977). "Distribution of Seagrases in Micronesia." Micronesica 13(2): 191-193. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2009). Global Open Oceans and Deep Seabeds (GOODS) - Biogeographic Classification. Paris, France, UNESCO - IOC: 82. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2003). Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Farallon De Medinilla and Tinian Military Lease Areas Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Plan Duration: FY03-12: 359. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2005). Year 2004 assessment, marine and fisheries resources--Farallon de Medinilla, Commonwealth of the northern Mariana Islands. Page 46 pp. in Second working copy. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010). Mariana Islands Range Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement: 952. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Water Quality Criteria - Suspended and Bedded Sediments. Appendix 3. U.S. Naval Base Guam. 2013. Marine ecological assessment of X-Ray Wharf, ApraHarbor, Guam. U.S. Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 36 pp. Valiela, I. (1995). Marine Ecological Processes. New York, NY, Springer-Verlag. van Oppen, M. J. H. and J. M. Lough. (2009). Coral Bleaching Patterns, Processes, Causes and Consequences, Springer. Vermeij, M. J. A., K. L. Marhaver, C. M. Huijbers, I. Nagelkerken and S. D. Simpson. (2010). "Coral larvae move toward reef sounds." PLoS ONE 5(5): e10660. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (1979). Fishery Management Plan for the Precious Coral Fisheries (and Associated Non-precious Corals) of the Western Pacific Region. September. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (1981). Final Combined Fishery Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Analysis and Draft Regulations for the Spiny Lobster Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. May. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (1986a). Combined Fishery Management Plan, Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review for the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region; Final. Honolulu, HI. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (1986b). Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. July. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (2001). Final Fishery Management Plan for Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Western Pacific Region. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1.
7-8 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (2009). Fishery ecosystem Plan for the Mariana Archipelago. NMFS. Honolulu, HI: 251. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (2012). Scientists weigh in on 2013 Fish Quotas, Western-Central Pacific Tuna Management. 26 October 2012. Wetzel, R. G. (2001). Limnology of Lake and River Ecosystems. San Diego, CA, Academic Press. Wilkinson, C. (2002). Executive Summary. In. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2002. C. Wilkinson, Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network: 7-31. Wilkinson, C. (2004). Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004, Australian Institute of Marine Science. Witman, J. D. and P. K. Dayton. (2001). Rocky subtidal communities. In. Marine community ecology. M.D. Bertness et al: 339-366. Wolanski, E., R. H. Richmond, G. Davis, E. Deleersnijder and R. R. Leben. (2003). "Eddies around Guam, an island in the Mariana Islands group." Continental Shelf Research 23: 991-1003. Chapter 4 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2007). Toxicological profile for lead. Atlanta, GA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services. Amoser, S. and F. Ladich. (2005). "Are hearing sensitivities of freshwater fish adapted to the ambient noise in their habitats?" Journal of Experimental Biology 208: 3533-3542. Aplin, J. A. (1947). "The effect of explosives on marine life." California Fish and Game 33: 23-30. Arfsten, D., C. Wilson and B. Spargo. (2002). "Radio Frequency Chaff: The Effects of Its Use in Training on the Environment." Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 53: 1-11. Astrup, J. (1999). "Ultrasound detection in fish - a parallel to the sonar-mediated detection of bats by ultrasound-sensitive insects?" Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A 124: 19-27. Astrup, J. and B. Mohl. (1993). "Detection of Intense Ultrasound by the Cod Gadus Morhua." Journal of Experimental Biology 182: 71-80. Au, W. W. L. and K. Banks. (1998). "The acoustics of the snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris in Kaneohe Bay." Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 103(1): 7. Berglind, R., D. Menning, R. Tryman, A. Helte, P. Leffler and R. M. Karlsson. (2009). Environmental effects of underwater explosions: a literature study, Totalforsvarets Forskningsinstitut, FOI. Boehlert, G. W. and A. B. Gill. (2010). "Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy development: A current synthesis." Oceanography 23(2): 68-81. Bottger, S. A., J. B. McClintock and T. S. Klinger. (2001). "Effects of inorganic and organic phosphates on feeding, feeding absorption, nutrient allocation, growth and righting responses of the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus." Marine Biology 138: 741–751. Buchman, M. F. (2008). NOAA screening quick reference tables (NOAA OR&R Report 08-1). Seattle, WA, Office of Response and Restoration Division. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. Budelmann, B. U. (1992a). Hearing by Crustacea. Evolutionary Biology of Hearing. R. R. F. a. A. N. P. D. B. Webster. New York, Springer Verlag: 131-139.
7-9 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Budelmann, B. U. (1992b). Hearing in nonarthropod invertebrates. Evolutionary Biology of Hearing. R. R. F. a. A. N. P. D. B. Webster. New York, Springer Verlag: 141-155. Bullock, T. H., D. A. Bodznick and R. G. Northcutt. (1983). "The Phylogenetic Distribution of Electroreception - Evidence for Convergent Evolution of a Primitive Vertebrate Sense Modality." Brian Research Reviews 6(1): 25-46. Buran, B. N., X. Deng and A. N. Popper. (2005). "Structural variation in the inner ears of four deep-sea elopomorph fishes." Journal of Morphology 265: 215-225. Carter, A. and S. Prekel. (2008). Benthic colonization and ecological successional patterns on a planned nearshore artificial reef (AR) system in Broward County, SE Florida. In: 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 7-11 July 2008. Casper, B., P. Lobel and H. Yan. (2003). "The hearing sensitivity of the little skate, Raja erinacea: A comparison of two methods." Environmental Biology of Fishes 68: 371-379. Casper, B. and D. Mann. (2006). "Evoked potential audiograms of the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) and the yellow stingray (Urabatis jamaicensis)." Environmental Biology of Fishes 76: 101- 108. Casper, B. M. and D. A. Mann. (2009). "Field hearing measurements of the Atlantic sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae." J Fish Biol 75(10): 2768-2776. Cato, D. H. and M. J. Bell. (1992). "Ultrasonic Ambient Noise in Australian Shallow Waters at Frequencies up to 200 kHz." Materials Research Labs Ascot from http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA251679. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. (1948). Effects of underwater explosions on oysters, crabs and fish: a preliminary report. Collin, S. P. and D. L. Whitehead. (2004). "The functional roles of passive electroreception in non-electric fishes." Animal Biology 54(1): 1-25. Continental Shelf Associates. (2004). Explosive removal of offshore structures - information synthesis report. Coombs, S. and A. Popper. (1979). "Hearing Differences Among Hawaiian Squirrelfish (Family Holocentridae) Related to Differences in the Peripheral Auditory System." Journal of Comparative Physiology 132: 203-307. Deng, X., H. J. Wagner and A. N. Popper. (2011). "The Inner Ear and its Coupling to the Swim Bladder in the Deep-Sea Fish Antimora rostrata (Teleostei: Moridae)." Deep Sea Res Part 1 Oceanogr Res Pap 58(1): 27-37. Derraik, J. G. B. (2002). "The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review." Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 842-852. Doksæter, L., O. R. Godo, N. O. Handegard, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, C. Donovan and P. J. O. Miller. (2009). "Behavioral responses of herring (Clupea harengus) to 1-2 and 6-7 kHz sonar signals and killer whale feeding sounds." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125(1): 554-564. Egner, S. and D. Mann. (2005). "Auditory sensitivity of sergeant major damselfish Abudefduf saxatilis from post-settlement juvenile to adult." Marine Ecology Progess Series 285: 213-222. Formicki, K., A. Tanski, M. Sadowski and A. Winnicki. (2004). "Effects of magnetic fields on fyke net performance." Journal of Applied Ichthyology 20(5): 402-406.
7-10 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Gaspin, J. B., G. B. Peters and M. L. Wisely. (1976). Experimental investigations of the effects of underwater explosions on swimbladder fish. C. B. tests. White Oak, MD, Naval Ordnance Lab. II. Gill, A. B. (2005). "Offshore renewable energy: ecological implications of generating electricity in the coastal zone." Journal of Applied Ecology 42(4): 605-615. Gochfeld, D. J. (2004). "Predation-induced morphological and behavioral defenses in a hard coral: implications for foraging behavior of coral-feeding butterflyfishes." Marine Ecology-Progress Series 267: 145-158. Goertner, J. F. (1982). Prediction of Underwater Explosion Safe Ranges for Sea Mammals. Dahlgren, VA, Naval Surface Weapons Center: 25. Goertner, J. F., M. L. Wiley, G. A. Young and W. W. McDonald. (1994). Effects of underwater explosions on fish without swimbladders. Silver Spring, MD, Naval Surface Warfare Center. Goodall, C., C. Chapman and D. Neil. (1990). The acoustic response threshold of Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus (L.) in a free found field. Frontiers in Crustacean Neurobiology W. D. K. K. Weise, J. Tautz, H. Reichert and B. Mulloney. Basel, Birkhauser: 106 - 113. Gorodilov, L. V. and A. P. Sukhotin. (1996). "Experimental investiagion of craters generated by explosions of underwater surface charges on sand." Combustion, Explosion, and Shock Waves 32(3): 344-346. Gregory, J. and P. Clabburn. (2003). "Avoidance behaviour of Alosa fallax fallax to pulsed ultrasound and its potential as a technique for monitoring clupeid spawning migration in a shallow river." Aquatic Living Resources 16: 313-316. Hamernik, R. P. and K. D. Hsueh. (1991). "Impulse noise: some definitions, physical acoustics and other considerations." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90(1): 189-196. Hastings, M. and A. Popper. (2005). Effects of Sound on Fish: 82. Hastings, M., A. Popper, J. Finneran and P. Lanford. (1996). "Effects of low-frequency underwater sound on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost fish Astronotus ocellatus." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99(3): 1759-1766. Hastings, M. C. (1990). "Effects of underwater sound on fish." Hastings, M. C. (1995). "Physical effects of noise on fishes." Proceedings of INTER0NOISE 95, The 1995 International Congress on Noise Control Engineering. Hawkins, A. D. and A. D. F. Johnstone. (1978). "The hearing of the Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar." Journal of Fish Biology 13: 655-673. Heberholz, J. and B. A. Schmitz. (2001). "Signaling via water currents in behavioral interactions of snapping shrimp (Alpheus heterochaelis)." Biological Bulletin 201: 6-16. Helfman, G. S., B. B. Collette, D. E. Facey and B. W. Bowen. (2009). The Diversity of Fishes. Hu, Y. H., H. Y. Yan, W. S. Chung, J. C. Shiao and P. P. Hwang. (2009). "Acoustically evoked potentials in two cephalopods inferred using the auditory brainstem response (ABR) approach." Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A 153: 278–283. Jeffs, A., N. Tolimieri and J. C. Montgomery. (2003). "Crabs on cue for the coast: the use of underwater sound for orientation by pelagic crab stages." Marine Freshwater Resources 54: 841-845.
7-11 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Jorgensen, R., K. Olsen, I. Petersen and P. Kanapthipplai. (2005). Investigations of potential effects of low frequency sonar signals on survival, development and behaviour of fish larvae and juveniles, The Norwegian College of Fishery Science, University of Tromso, Norway: 51. Kaifu, K., T. Akamatsu and S. Segawa. (2008). "Underwater sound detection by cephalopod statocyst." Fisheries Science 74: 781–786. Kajiura, S. M. and K. N. Holland. (2002). "Electroreception in Juvenile Scalloped Hammerhead and Sandbar Sharks." The Journal of Experimental Biology 205: 3609-3621. Kalmijn, A. J. (2000). "Detection and processing of electromagnetic and near-field acoustic signals in elasmobranch fishes." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 355(1401): 1135-1141. Kane, A. S., J. Song, M. B. Halvorsen, D. L. Miller, J. D. Salierno, L. E. Wysocki, D. Zeddies and A. N. Popper. (2010). "Exposure of fish to high intensity sonar does not induce acute pathology." Journal of Fish Biology 76(7): 1825-1840. Keevin, T. M. and G. L. Hempen. (1997). The environmental effects of underwater explosions with methods to mitigate impacts. St. Louis, MO. Kenyon, T. (1996). "Ontogenetic changes in the auditory sensitivity of damselfishes (pomacentridae)." Journal of Comparative Physiology 179: 553-561. Ketten, D. R. (1998). Marine Mammal Auditory Systems: A Summary of Audiometric and Anatomical Data and its Implications for Underwater Acoustic Impacts. La Jolla, CA, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center: 74. Kvadsheim, P. H. and E. M. Sevaldsen. (2005). "The potential impact of 1-8 kHz active sonar on stocks of juvenile fish during sonar exercises." Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt. Ladich, F. (2008). "Sound communication in fishes and the influence of ambient and anthropogenic noise." Bioacoustics 17: 35-37. Ladich, F. and A. N. Popper. (2004). Parallel Evolution in Fish Hearing Organs. Evolution of the Vertebrate Auditory System, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research. A. N. P. a. R. R. F. G. A. Manley. New York, Springer-Verlag. Latha, G., S. Senthilvadivu, R. Venkatesan and V. RajendranLindholm. (2005). "Sound of shallow and deep water lobsters: Measurements, analysis, and characterization." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America(117): 2720-2723. Lohmann, K. J., N. D. Pentcheff, G. A. Nevitt, G. D. Stetten, R. K. Zimmer-Faust, H. E. Jarrard and L. C. Boles. (1995). "Magnetic orientation of spiny lobsters in the ocean: Experiments with undersea coil systems." Journal of Experimental Biology 198(10): 2041-1048. Lombarte, A. and A. N. Popper. (1994). "Quantitative analyses of postembryonic hair cell addition in the otolithic endorgans of the inner ear of the European hake, Merluccius merluccius (Gadiformes, Teleostei)." Journal of Comparative Neurology 345(419-428). Lovell, J. M., M. M. Findlay, R. M. Moate, J. R. Nedwell and M. A. Pegg. (2005). "The inner ear morphology and hearing abilities of the Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) and the Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)." Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 142: 286-296.
7-12 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Lovell, J. M., R. M. Moate, L. Christiansen and M. M. Findlay. (2006). "The relationship between body size and evoked potentials from the statocysts of the prawn Palaemon serratus." The Journal of Experimental Biology 209: 2480-2485. Mackie, G. O. and C. L. Singla. (2003). "The Capsular Organ of Chelyosoma productum (Ascidiacea: Corellidae): A New Tunicate Hydrodynamic Sense Organ." Brain, Behavior and Evolution 61: 45-58. Mann, D., D. Higgs, W. Tavolga, M. Souza and A. Popper. (2001). "Ultrasound detection by clupeiform fishes." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America: 3048-3054. Mann, D., A. Popper and B. Wilson. (2005). "Pacific herring hearing does not include ultrasound." Biology Letters 1: 158-161. Mann, D. A., Z. Lu, M. C. Hastings and A. N. Popper. (1998). "Detection of ultrasonic tones and simulated dolphin echolocation clicks by a teleost fish, the American shad (Alosa sapidissima)." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 104(1): 562-568. Mann, D. A., Z. Lu and A. N. Popper. (1997). "A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound." Nature: 389-341. Marcotte, M. M. and C. G. Lowe. (2008). "Behavioral responses of two species of sharks to pulsed, direct current electrical fields: Testing a potential shark deterrent." Marine Technology Society Journal 42(2): 53-61. Mato, Y., T. Isobe, H. Takada, H. Kanehiro, C. Ohtake and T. Kaminuma. (2001). "Plastic Resin Pellets as a Tranport Medium for Toxic Chemicals in the Marine Environment." Environmental Science Technology 35: 318-324. McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch and K. McCabe. (2000). "Marine seismic surveys: A study of environmental implications." Appea Journal 2000: 692-708. McLennan, M. W. (1997). "A simple model for water impact peak pressure and width: a technical memorandum." Miller, J. D. (1974). "Effects of noise on people." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 56(3): 729- 764. Mintz, J. and R. Filadelfo. (2011). Exposure of Marine Mammals to Broadband Radiated Noise. Specific Authority N0001-4-05-D-0500. CNA Analysis & Solutions: 42. Mintz, J. D. and C. L. Parker. (2006). Vessel Traffic and Speed Around the U.S. Coasts and Around Hawaii. Alexandria, VA, CNA Corporation: 48. Montgomery, J. C., A. Jeffs, S. D. Simpson, M. Meekan and C. Tindle. (2006). "Sound as an orientation cue for the pelagic larvae of reef fishes and decapod crustaceans." Adv Mar Biol 51: 143-196. Mooney, T. A., R. T. Hanlon, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, P. T. Madsen, D. Ketten and P. E. Nachtigall. (2010). "Sound detection by the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) studied with auditory evoked potentials: sensitivity to low-frequency particle motion and not pressure." J Exp Biol 213: 3748-3759. Myrberg, A. A. (2001). "The acoustical biology of elasmobranchs." Environmental Biology of Fishes 60(31-45). Negri, A. P., L. D. Smith, N. S. Webster and A. J. Heyward. (2002). "Understanding ship-grounding impacts on a coral reef: potential effects of anti-foulant paint contamination on coral recruitment." Marine Pollution Bulletin 44(2): 111-117.
7-13 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Normandeau, Exponent, T. T. and A. Gill. (2011). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. Camarillo, CA, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region. O'Connell, C. P., D. C. Abel, P. H. Rice, E. M. Stroud and N. C. Simuro. (2010). "Responses of the southern stingray (Dasyatis americana) and the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) to permanent magnets." Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 43(1): 63-73. O'Keeffe, D. J. and G. A. Young. (1984). Handbook on the Environmental Effects of Underwater Explosions, Naval Surface Weapons Center. Ohman, M. C., P. Sigray and H. Westerberg. (2007). "Offshore windmills and the effects electromagnetic fields an fish." Ambio 36(8): 630-633. Packard, A., H. E. Karlsen and O. Sand. (1990). "Low frequency hearing in cephalopods." Journal of Comparative Physiology A 166: 501-505. Pait, A. S., A. L. Mason, D. R. Whitall, J. D. Christensen and S. I. Hartwell. (2010). Chapter 5: Assessment of chemical contaminants in sediments and corals in Vieques. In. An ecological characterization of the marine resources of Vieques, Puerto Rico. L. J. Bauer and M. S. Kendall. Silver Spring, MD, NOAA MCCOS 110: 101–150. Patek, S. N. and R. L. Caldwell. (2006). "The stomatopod rumble: Low frequency sound production in Hemisquilla californiensis." Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 39(2): 99-111. Patek, S. N., L. E. Shipp and E. R. Staaterman. (2009). "The acoustics and acoustic behavior of the California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus)." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125(5): 3434-3443. Pater, L. L. (1981). Gun blast far field peak overpressure contours, Naval Surface Weapons Center. Popper, A. (1977). "A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study of the Sacculus and Lagena in the Ears of Fifteen Species of Teleost Fishes." J. Morph 153: 397-417. Popper, A. (1980). "Scanning Electron Microscopic Study of the Sacculus and Lagena in Several Deep-Sea Fishes." The American Journal of Anatomy 157: 115-136. Popper, A. N., M. Salmon and K. W. Horch. (2001). "Acoustic detection and communication by decapod crustaceans." Journal of Comparative Physiology A 187: 83-89. Popper, A. (2003). "Effects of Anthropogenic Sounds on Fishes." Fisheries 28(10): 24-31. Popper, A. N. (2008). Effects of mid- and High-Frequency Sonars on Fish. Newport, Rhode Island, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division: 52. Popper, A. N. and R. R. Fay. (2010). "Rethinking sound detection by fishes." Hearing Research. Popper, A. N., R. R. Fay, C. Platt and O. Sand. (2003). Sound detection mechanisms and capabilities of teleost fishes. Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environment. S. P. Collin and N. J. Marshall. New York, Springer-Verlag. Popper, A. N. and M. C. Hastings. (2009). "The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes." Journal of Fish Biology 75(3): 455-489. Popper, A. N. and B. Hoxter. (1987). "Sensory and nonsensory ciliated cells in the ear of the sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus." Brain, Behavior and Evolution 30: 43-61.
7-14 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Popper, A. N. and C. R. Schilt. (2008). Hearing and acoustic behavior (basic and applied). In:. Fish Bioacoustics. J. F. Webb, R. R. Fay and A. N. Popper. New York, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. Radford, C., A. Jeffs and J. C. Montgomery. (2007). "Directional swimming behavior by five species of crab postlarvae in response to reef sound." Bulletin of Marine Science 2(80): 369-378. Radford, C., J. Stanley, C. Tindle, J. C. Montgomery and A. Jeffs. (2010). "Localised coastal habitats have distinct underwater sound signatures." Marine Ecology Progress Series 401: 21-29. Ramcharitar, J., D. Higgs and A. Popper. (2006). "Audition in sciaenid fishes with different swim bladder- inner ear configurations." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(1): 439-443. Ramcharitar, J. U., X. Deng, D. Ketten and A. N. Popper. (2004). "Form and function in the unique inner ear of a teleost: The silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura)." Journal of Comparative Neurology 475(4): 531-539. Rigg, D. P., S. C. Peverell, M. Hearndon and J. E. Seymour. (2009). "Do elasmobranch reactions to magnetic fields in water show promise for bycatch mitigation?" Marine and Freshwater Research 60(9): 942-948. Rosen, G. and G. Lotufo. (2007a). "Toxicity of explosive compounds to the marine mussel, Mytilus galloprovincialis, in aqueous exposures." Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 68(2). Rosen, G. and G. R. Lotufo. (2007b). "Bioaccumulation of explosive compounds in the marine mussel, Mytilus galloprovincialis." Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 68(2): 237-245. Rosen, G. and G. R. Lotufo. (2010). "Fate and effects of Composition B in multispecies marine exposures." Environ Toxicol Chem 29(6): 1330-1337. Simpson, S. D., A. N. Radford, E. J. Tickle, M. G. Meekan and A. Jeffs. (2011). "Adaptive Avoidance of Reef Noise." PLoS ONE 6(2). Singh, B. and N. Sharma. (2008). "Mechanistic implications of plastic degradation." Polymer Degradation and Stability 93(3): 561-584. Sisneros, J. A. and A. H. Bass. (2003). "Seasonal Plasticity of Peripheral Auditory Frequency Sensitivity." The Journal of Neuroscience 23(3): 1049-1058. Slabbekoorn, H., N. Bouton, I. van Opzeeland, A. Coers, C. ten Cate and A. N. Popper. (2010). "A noisy spring: The impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish." Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25(7): 419-427. Smith, M. E., A. B. Coffin, D. L. Miller and A. N. Popper. (2006). "Anatomical and functional recovery of the goldfish (Carassius auratus) ear following noise exposure." Journal of Experimental Biology 209(Pt 21): 4193-4202. Sprague, M. W. and J. J. Luczkovich. (2004). "Measurement of an individual silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura sound pressure level in a field recording." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(5): 3186-3191. Stanley, J., C. Radford and A. Jeffs. (2010). "Induction of settlement in crab megalopae by ambient underwater reef sound." Behavioral Ecology 21(3): 113-120. Teuten, E., S. Rowland, T. Galloway and R. Thompson. (2007). "Potential for Plastics to Transport Hydrophobic Contaminants." Environmental Science Technology 41: 7759-7764.
7-15 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
U.S. Department of the Army. (1999). Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Life Cycle Environmental Assessment (LCEA) for the HELLFIRE Modular Missile System. U.S. Department of the Navy. (1996a). Draft environmental assessment of the use of selected Navy test sites for development tests and fleet training exercises of the MK- 46 and MK- 50 torpedoes, Program Executive Office, Antisubmarine Warfare Assault and Special Mission Programs. (CONFIDENTIAL). U.S. Department of the Navy. (1996b). Environmental assessment of the use of selected Navy test sites for development tests and fleet training exercises of the MK-48 torpedoes, Program Executive Office Undersea Warfare, Program Manager for Undersea Weapons. (CONFIDENTIAL). U.S. Department of the Navy. (2000). Noise Blast Test Results Aboard the USS Cole. Gun Blast Transmission into Water Test with a 5-Inch/54 Caliber Naval Gun (Standard Ordnance). U.S. Department of the Navy. (2005). Biological Assessment for Sinking Exercises (SINKEXs) in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. C. F. F. C. U.S. Department of the Navy. Newport, VA, Naval Undersea Warfare Division, Newport. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008). Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) Shock Trial of the MESA VERDE (LPD 19). 1, 2: 348, 404. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010). Jacksonville (JAX) Operating Area (OPAREA) Undersea Warfare Trainng Range (USWTR) Bottom Mapping and Habitat Characterization, Florida. Final Cruise Report. Norfolk, Virginia, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic. U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012). Determination of Acoustic Effects on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles for the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement DRAFT - Version 0.5. Marine Species Modeling Team. Newport, Rhode Island, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division: 34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). "Ocean Regulatory Programs August 1999 SINKEX Letter Agreement between EPA and the Navy." Retrieved March 8, 2010. Vermeij, M. J. A., K. L. Marhaver, C. M. Huijbers, I. Nagelkerken and S. D. Simpson. (2010). "Coral larvae move toward reef sounds." PLoS ONE 5(5): e10660. Wang, W. X. and P. S. Rainbow. (2008). "Comparative approaches to understand metal bioaccumulation in aquatic animals." Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 148(4): 315-323. Wilson, M., R. T. Hanlon, P. L. Tyack and P. T. Madsen. (2007). "Intense ultrasonic clicks from echolocating toothed whales do not elicit anti-predator responses or debilitate the squid Loligo pealeii." Biology Letters 3: 225-227. Wright, A., N. Soto, A. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E. Edwards, A. Fernandez, A. Godinho, L. Hatch, A. Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, M. Romero, L. Weilgart, B. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara and V. Martin. (2007). "Anthropogenic Noise as a Stressor in Animals: A Multidisciplinary Perspective." International Journal of Comparative Psychology. Wright, D. G. (1982). A Discussion Paper on the Effects of Explosives on Fish and Marine Mammals in the Waters of the Northwest Territories. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Western Region Department of Fisheries and Oceans: 1-16. Wright, K. J., D. M. Higgs, A. J. Belanger and J. M. Leis. (2005). "Auditory and olfactory abilities of pre- settlement larvae and post-settlement juveniles of a coral reef damselfish (Pisces: Pomacentridae)." Marine Biology 147(6): 1425-1434.
7-16 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Yagla, J. and R. Stiegler. (2003). Gun Blast Noise Transmission Across the Air-Sea Interface. euronoise. Naples: 9. Yelverton, J. T., D. R. Richmond, W. Hicks, K. Saunders and E. R. Fletcher. (1975). The Relationship Between Fish Size and Their Response to Underwater Blast. Defense Nuclear Agency. Washington, D.C., Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research: 40. Young, G. A. (1991). Concise methods for predicting the effects of underwater explosions on marine life. Silver Spring, Naval Surface Warfare Center. Zelick, R., D. Mann and A. N. Popper. (1999). Acoustic communication in fishes and frogs. Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians a. A. N. P. R. R. Fay. New York, Springer-Verlag: 363-411.
7-17 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
7-18 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
APPENDIX A LIST OF FEDERALLY MANAGED SPECIES WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
BOTTOMFISH MANAGEMENT UNIT SPECIES Blue-lined surgeon (Acanthurus nigroris) Bluespine unicornfish (Naso unicornus) Alfonsin (Beryx splendens) Brick soldierfish (Myripristis amaena) Amberjack (Seriola dumerili) Bridled triggerfish (Sufflamen fraenatum) Armorhead (Pseudopentaceros wheeleri) Brown surgeonfish (Acanthurus nigrofuscus) Black jack (Caranx lugubris) Butterflyfish (Chaetodon auriga) Blue stripe snapper (Lutjanus kasmira) Cigar wrasse (Cheilio inermis) Giant trevally (Caranx ignoblis) Convict tang (Acanthurus triostegus) Gray jobfish (Aprion virescens) Crown squirrelfish (Sargocentron diadema) Hawaiian grouper (Epinephelus quernus) Doublebar goatfish (Parupeneus bifasciatus) Longtail snapper (Etelis coruscans) Dragon eel (Enchelycore pardalis) Pink snapper (Pristipomoides filamentosus) Eye-striped surgeonfish (Acanthurus dussumieri) Pink snapper (Pristipomoides sieboldii) False mullet (Neomyxus leuciscus) Raftfish (Hyperoglyphe japonica) Featherduster worm (Sabellidae) Silver jaw jobfish (Aphareus rutilansi) File-lined squirrelfish (Sargocentron microstoma) Squirrelfish snapper (Etelis carbunculus) Galapagos shark (Carcharhinus galapagensis) Thick lipped trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex) Giant moray eel (Gymnothorax javanicus) Yellow-barred snapper (Pristipomoides zonatus) Glasseye (Heteropriacanthus cruentatus) Yellowtail snapper (Pristipomoides auricilla) Gray unicornfish (Naso caesius) CRUSTACEANS MANAGEMENT UNIT SPECIES Great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) Turbo Deepwater shrimp (Heterocarpus spp.) Green snails turban shells ( spp.) Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Kona crab (Ranina ranina) Grey reef shark ( ) Kuhlia sandvicensis Slipper lobster (Family Scyllaridae) Hawaiian flag-tail ( ) Sargocentron xantherythrum Spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus) Hawaiian squirrelfish ( ) Sphyraena helleri Spiny lobster (Panulirus marginatus) Heller’s barracuda ( ) Mackerel scad (Decapterus macarellus) PRECIOUS CORALS MANAGEMENT UNIT SPECIES Moorish idol (Zanclus cornutus) Black coral (Antipathes dichotoma) Multi-barred goatfish (Parupeneus multifaciatus) Black coral (Antipathes grandis) Octopus (Octopus cyanea) Black coral (Antipathes ulex) Octopus (Octopus ornatus) Pink coral (Corallium laauense) Orange goatfish (Mulloidichthys pfleugeri) Pink coral (Corallium regale) Orangespine unicornfish (Naso lituratus) Pink coral (Corallium secundum) Orange-spot surgeonfish (Acanthurus olivaceus) Gold coral (Gerardia spp.) Parrotfish (Scarus spp.) Bamboo coral (Lepidisis olapa) Pearly soldierfish (Myripristis kuntee) Gold coral (Narella spp.) Peppered squirrelfish (Sargocentron punctatissimum) CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT UNITS SPECIES, Picassofish (Rhinecanthus aculeatus) CURRENTLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA Pinktail triggerfish (Melichthys vidua) Banded goatfish (Parupeneus spp.) Raccoon butterflyfish (Chaetodon lunula) Bandtail goatfish (Upeneus arge) Razor wrasse (Xyrichtys pavo) Bigeye (Priacanthus hamrur) Red ribbon wrasse (Thalassoma quinquevittatum) Bigeye scad (Selar crumenophthalmus) Ringtail surgeonfish (Acanthurus blochii) Bigscale soldierfish (Myripristis berndti) Ring-tailed wrasse (Oxycheilinus unifasciatus) Black tongue unicornfish (Naso hexacanthus) Rockmover wrasse (Novaculichthys taeniourus) Black triggerfish (Melichthys niger) Rudderfish (Kyphosus biggibus) Blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus) Rudderfish (Kyphosus cinerascens) Blue-lined squirrelfish (Sargocentron tiere) Rudderfish (Kyphosus vaigiensis)
A-1 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Saber or long jaw squirrelfish (Sargocentron Frogfishes (Antennariidae) spiniferum) Goatfishes (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Saddleback butterflyfish (Chaetodon ephippium) Mullidae Saddleback hogfish (Bodianus bilunulatus) Gobies (Gobiidae) Side-spot goatfish (Parupeneus pleurostigma) Groupers, seabass (Those species not listed as Spotfin squirrelfish (Neoniphon spp.) CHCRT or in BMUS) Serrandiae Spotted unicornfish (Naso brevirostris) Hawkfishes (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Stareye parrotfish (Calotomus carolinus) Cirrhitidae Striped bristletooth (Ctenochaetus striatus) Herrings (Clupeidae) Stripped mullet (Mugil cephalus) Hydroid corals (Solanderidae) Sunset wrasse (Thalassoma lutescens) Hydrozoans and Bryzoans Surge wrasse (Thalassoma purpureum) Jacks and scads (Those species not listed as CHCRT or Threadfin (Polydactylus sexfilis) in BMUS) Carangidae Undulated moray eel (Gymnothorax undulates) Lace corals (Stylasteridae) Whitebar surgeonfish (Acanthurus leucopareius) Live rock Whitecheek surgeonfish (Acanthurus nigricans) Lobsters, shrimps, mantis shrimps, true crabs, and Whitemargin unicornfish (Naso annulatus) hermit crabs (Those species not listed as Crustacean White-spotted surgeonfish (Acanthurus guttatus) Management Unit Species [CMUS]) Whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus) Crustaceans Yellow goatfish (Mulloidichthys spp.) Mollusca (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Yellow tang (Zebrasoma flavescens) Moorish Idols (Zanclidae) Yellow-eyed surgeonfish (Ctenochaetus strigosus) Mushroom corals (Fungiidae) Yellowfin goatfish (Mulloidichthys vanicolensis) Octopi (Cephalopods) Yellowfin soldierfish (Myripristis chryseres) Other clams (Other Bivalves) Yellowfin surgeonfish (Acanthurus xanthopterus) Pipefishes and seahorses (Syngnathidae) Yellowmargin moray eel (Gymnothorax Puffer fishes and porcupine fishes (Tetradontidae) flavimarginatus) Rays and skates (Dasyatididae) Yellowsaddle goatfish (Parupeneus cyclostomas) Rays and skates (Myliobatidae) Yellowstripe goatfish (Mulloidichthys flavolineatus) Remoras (Echeneidae) Rudderfishes (Those species not listed as CHCRT) CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT UNITS SPECIES, Kyphosidae POTENTIALLY HARVESTED CORAL REEF TAXA Sandperches (Pinguipedidae) Ahermatypic corals (Azooxanthellates) Scorpionfishes, lionfishes (Scorpaenidae) Anchovies (Engraulidae) Sea cucumbers and sea urchins (Echinoderms) Anemones (Actinaria) Sea slugs (Opistobranchs) Angelfishes (Pomacanthidae) Sea snails (Gastropoda) Barracudas (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Sea squirts (Tunicates) Black lipped pearl oyster (Pinctada margaritifera) Seaweed (Algae) Blennies (Blenniidae) Segmented worms (Those species not listed as Butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae) CHCRT) Annelids Cardinalfishes (Apogonidae) Sharks (Sphyrnidae) Coral crouchers (Caracanthidae) Sharks (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Cornetfish (Fistularia commersoni) Carcharhinidae Damselfishes (Pomacentridae) Small and large coral polyps (Fungiidae) Eels (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Snappers (Those species not listed as CHCRT or in Muraenidae BMUS) Lutjanidae Eels (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Soft corals and gorgonians (Fungiidae) Congridae Soft zoanthid corals (Zoanthinaria) Eels (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Solderfishes and squirrelfishes (Those species not Ophichthidae listed as CHCRT) Holocentridae Flounders and soles (Bothidae) Sponges (Porifera) Flounders and soles (Soleidae) Surgeonfishes (Those species not listed as CHCRT) Flounders and soles (Pleurnectidae) Acanthuridae
A-2 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Tilefishes (Malacanthidae) Trigger fishes (Balistidae) Trumpetfish (Aulostomus chinensis) Trunkfishes (Ostraciidae) All other coral reef ecosystem management unit species that are marine plants, invertebrates, and fishes that are not listed in the preceding tables or are not bottomfish management unit species, CMUS, Pacific pelagic management unit species, precious coral or seamount groundfish.
PELAGIC MANAGEMENT UNITS SPECIES Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus) BigeyeTtuna (Thunnus obesus) Black marlin (Makaira indica) Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) Blue shark (Prionace glauca) Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus) Thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) Diamondback squid (Thysanoteuthis rhombus) Dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor) Frigate and bullet tunas (Auxis thazard, A. rochei) Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis) Longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus) Mackerel (Scomber spp.) Mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus, C. equiselas) Neon flying squid (Ommastrephes bartamii) Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) Ono (Acanthocybium solandri) Opah (Lampris spp.) Pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus) Pomfret (family Bramidae) Purple flying squid (Sthenoteuthis oualaniensis) Sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) Salmon shark (Lamna ditropis) Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) Slender tunas (Allothunnus fallai) Spearfish (Tetrapturus spp.) Striped Marlin (Tetrapurus audax) Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares)
A-3 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
A-4 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
APPENDIX B PRIMARY HABITAT TYPES DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT B PRIMARY HABITAT TYPES DESIGNATED AS ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT B.1 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT DESIGNATIONS BY PRIMARY HABITAT TYPE FOR EACH SPECIES/MANAGEMENT UNIT AND LIFE STAGE Table B-1: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Bottomfish Management Unit
WPRFMC Bottomfish Management Unit Ma La Es SB Ss Cr/Hs Pr Sz DST Pe Comments
Shallow-water Species Complex (0–100 m)
Amberjack (Seriola dumerili) J A, J A A, J, L, E Adult depth of 0–250 m Black jack (Caranx lugubris) A A, J, L, E Adult depth of 12–354 m Blue stripe snapper (Lutjanus kasmira) A J A, J A E, L Adult depth of 0–265 m Giant trevally (Caranx ignoblis) J J E, L Adult depth of 80 m Gray jobfish (Aprion virescens) A J J A, J A, J A E, L Adult depth of 3–180 m Thicklip trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex) A A J A, J A E, L Adult depth of 18–183 m
Deep-water Species Complex (100–400 m)
Hawaiian grouper (Epinephelus quernus) J A A E, L Adult depth of 20–380 m Longtail snapper (Etelis coruscans) A A E, L Adult depth of 164–293 m Juvenile depth of 65–100 m; Pink snapper (Pristipomoides filamentosus) J A E, L Adult depth of 100–200 m Pink snapper (Pristipomoides sieboldii) A E, L Adult depth of 180–360 m Silver jaw jobfish (Aphareus rutilans) A A E, L Adult depth of 6–100 m Squirrelfish snapper (Etelis carbunculus) A A E, L Adult depth of 90–350 m Yellow-barred snapper (Pristipomoides zonatus) A E, L Adult depth of 100–200 m Yellowtail snapper (Pristipomoides auricilla) A E, L Adult depth of 180–270 m Notes: Habitat: Mangrove (Ma), Lagoon (La), Estuarine (Es), Seagrass Beds (SB), Soft Substrate (Ss), Coral Reef/Hard Substrate (Cr/Hs), Patch Reefs (Pr), Surge Zone (Sz), Deep-slope Terraces (DST), Pelagic/Open Ocean (Pe). Life History Stage: Egg (E), Larvae (L), Juvenile (J), Adult (A); m = meter(s), WPRFMC = Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Source: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2001, 2009
B-1 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table B-2: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Crustacean Management Unit
WPRFMC Crustacean Management Unit Ma La Es SB Ss Cr/Hs Pr Sz DST Pe Comments Spiny and Slipper Lobster Complex Chinese slipper lobster (Parribacus antarticus) A Depth Distribution: 0–20 m Ridgeback slipper lobster (Scyllarides haani) A Depth Distribution: 10–135 m Spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus, Panulirus sp.) All A, J All All All L Depth Distribution: 9–183 m Kona Crab Kona crab (Ranina ranina) A Adult depth of 24–115 m Notes: Habitat: Mangrove (Ma), Lagoon (La), Estuarine (Es), Seagrass Beds (SB), Soft Substrate (Ss), Coral Reef/Hard Substrate (Cr/Hs), Patch Reefs (Pr), Surge Zone (Sz), Deep-slope Terraces (DST), Pelagic/Open Ocean (Pe). Life History Stage: Egg (E), Larvae (L), Juvenile (J), Adult (A), Spawners (S); m = meter(s), WPRFMC = Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Source: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2001, 2009
Table B-3: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Crustacean Management Unit
WPRFMC Crustacean Management Unit Ma La Es SB Ss Cr/Hs Pr Sz DST Pe Comments Spiny and Slipper Lobster Complex Chinese slipper lobster (Parribacus antarticus) A Depth Distribution: 0–20 m Ridgeback slipper lobster (Scyllarides haani) A Depth Distribution: 10–135 m Spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus, Panulirus sp.) All A, J All All All L Depth Distribution: 9–183 m Kona Crab Kona crab (Ranina ranina) A Adult depth of 24–115 m Notes: Habitat: Mangrove (Ma), Lagoon (La), Estuarine (Es), Seagrass Beds (SB), Soft Substrate (Ss), Coral Reef/Hard Substrate (Cr/Hs), Patch Reefs (Pr), Surge Zone (Sz), Deep-slope Terraces (DST), Pelagic/Open Ocean (Pe). Life History Stage: Egg (E), Larvae (L), Juvenile (J), Adult (A), Spawners (S); m = meter(s), WPRFMC = Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Source: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2001, 2009
B-2 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table B-4: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Precious Corals Management Unit
WPRFMC Precious Corals Management Unit Ma La Es SB Ss Hs Pr Sz DST Pe Comments Shallow-water Species Assemblage (18–91 m) Black coral (Antipathes dichomata) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 30–110 m Fern black coral (Antipathes ulex) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 40–100 m Pine black coral (Antipathes grandis) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 45–110 m Deep-water Species Assemblage (274–1,372 m) Angel skin coral (Corallium secundum) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 350–475 m Bamboo coral (Lepidisis olapa) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 300–400 m Gold coral (Callogoria gilberti) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 300–1,500 m Gold coral (Narella sp.) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 300–1,500 m Gold coral (Calyprophora spp.) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 300–1,500 m Gold coral (Acanella sp.) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 300–1,500 m Hawaiian gold coral (Geraddia sp.) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 300–400 m Midway deepsea coral (Corallium sp. nov) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 300–1,500 m Pink coral (Corallium laauense) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 350–1,500 m Red coral (Corallium regale) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Depth Distribution: 380–410 m Notes: Habitat: Mangrove (Ma), Lagoon (La), Estuarine (Es), Seagrass Beds (SB), Soft Substrate (Ss), Hard Substrate (Hs), Patch Reefs (Pr), Surge Zone (Sz), Deep-slope Terraces (DST), Pelagic/Open Ocean (Pe); Life History Stage: Egg (E), Larvae (L), Juvenile (J), Adult (A), Spawners (S); m = meter(s), WPRFMC = Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Source: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009
B-3 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table B-5: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit
WPRFMC Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Ma La Es SB Ss Cr/Hs Pr Sz DST Pe Currently Harvested Coral Reef Taxa Acanthuridae (surgeonfishes) Subfamily Acanthurinae (surgeonfishes) Orange-spot surgeonfish (Acanthurus olivaceus) Yellowfin surgeonfish (Acanthurus xanthopterus) Convict tang (Acanthurus triostegus) Eye-striped surgeonfish (Acanthurus dussumieri) Blue-lined surgeon (Acanthurus nigroris) J A, J, S A, J, S J A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S A, J A, J E, L Whitebar surgeonfish (Acanthurus leucopareius) Whitecheek surgeonfish (Acanthurus nigricans) White-spotted surgeonfish (Acanthurus guttatus) Ringtail surgeonfish (Acanthurus blochii) Brown surgeonfish (Acanthurus nigrofuscus) Yellow-eyed surgeonfish (Ctenochaetus strigosus) Subfamily Nasianae (unicornfishes) Bluespine unicornfish (Naso unicornus) Orangespine unicornfish (Naso lituratus) Blacktongue unicornfish (Naso hexacanthus) J A, J, S J A, S A, J, S A, J, S A, S All Whitemargin unicornfish (Naso annulatus) Spotted unicornfish (Naso brevirostris) Gray unicornfish (Naso caesius) Balistidae (trigger fish) Pinktail triggerfish (Melichthys vidua) Black triggerfish (M. niger) J A, J, S J A, J, S A, J, S A A, S L Picassofish (Rhinecanthus aculeatus) Wedged Picassofish (R. rectangulus) Bridled triggerfish (Sufflamen fraenatus)
B-4 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table B–5: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit (continued)
WPRFMC Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Ma La Es SB Ss Cr/Hs Pr Sz DST Pe Carangidae (jacks) Bigeye scad (Selar crumenophthalmus) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S J A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S All E, L Mackerel scad (Decapterus macarellus) Carcharhinidae Grey reef shark (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) Galapagos shark (Carcharhinus galapagenis) A, J A, J A, J J A, J A, J A, J A, J A, J Blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus) Whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus) Holocentridae (soldierfish/squirrelfish) Bigscale soldierfish (Myripristis berndti) Blotcheye soldierfish (Myripristis murdjan) Bricksoldierfish (Myripristis amaena) Yellowfin soldierfish (Myripristis chryseres) Pearly soldierfish (Myripristis kuntee) (Myripristis hexagona) A, J, S A, J, S J A, J, S A, J, S A, S E, L File-lined squirrelfish (Sargocentron microstoma) Peppered squirrelfish (Sargocentron punctatissimum) Blue-lined squirrelfish (Sargocentron tiere) Hawaiian squirrelfish (Sargocentron xantherythrum) Saber squirrelfish (Sargocentron spiniferum) Spotfin squirrelfish (Neoniphon spp.) Kuhliidae (flagtails) A, J A, J A, J A, J A E, L Hawaiian flagtail (Kuhlia sandvicensis)
B-5 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table B–5: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit (continued)
WPRFMC Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Ma La Es SB Ss Cr/Hs Pr Sz DST Pe Kyphosidae (rudderfishes) Highfin chub (K. cinerascens) A, J, S A, J, S A, J A, J, S A, J, S A, J All Lowfin chub (K. vaigiensis) Labridae (wrasses) Saddleback hogfish (Bodianus bilunulatus) J J A, J A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Razor wrasse (Xyrichtys pavo) Ring-tailed wrasse (Oxycheilinus unifasciatus) A, J A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Cigar wrasse (Cheilio inermis) A, J E, L Surge wrasse (Thalassoma purpureum) A, J J A, J, S A, J, S A, J E, L Redribbon wrasse (Thalassoma quinquevittatum) Sunset wrasse (Thalassoma lutescens) A, J J A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Rockmover wrasse (Novaculichthys taeniourus) A, J A, J, S A, J, S A, J Mullidae (goatfish) Yellow goatfish (Mulloidichthys spp.) (Mulloidichthys pfleugeri) (Mulloidichthys vanicolensis) (Mulloidichthys flavolineatus) Banded goatfish (Parupeneus spp.) A, J A A, J A, J A, J A, J E, L (Parupeneus bifasciatus) (Parupeneus cyclostomas) (Parupeneus pleurostigma) (Parupeneus multifaciatus) Bandtail goatfish (Upeneus arge)
B-6 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table B–5: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit (continued)
WPRFMC Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Unit Ma La Es SB Ss Cr/Hs Pr Sz DST Pe Octopodidae (octopuses) Day octopus (Octopus cyanea) A, J, S All A, J, S All All All All All L Night octopus (Octupus ornatus) Mugilidae (mullets) Stripped mullet (Mugil cephalus) J A, J, S A, J, S J A, J A E, L Engel’s mullet (Moolgarda engeli) False mullet (Neomyxus leuciscus) Muraenidae (moray eels) Yellowmargin moray (Gymnothorax flavimarginatus) A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S A, J A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S E, L Giant moray (Gymnothorax javanicus) Undulated moray (Gymnothorax undulatus) Polynemidae (threadfins) A, J A, J, S A, J, S A, J, S A, J E, L Threadfin/Moi (Polydactylus sexfilis) Priacanthidae (bigeyes) Glasseye (Heteropriacanthus cruentatus) A, J A, J A, J E, L Bigeye (Priacanthus hamrur) Scaridae (parrotfishes) Parrotfishes (Scarus and Chlorurus spp.) J A, J, S A, J A, J, S A, J, S E, L Stareye parrotfish (Calotomus carolinus) Sphyraenidae (barracudas) Heller’s barracuda (Sphyraena helleri) A, J A, J, S A, J, S J A, J, S A, J, S A, S All Great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) Notes: Egg (E), Larvae (L), Juvenile (J), Adult (A), Spawners (S), Mangrove (Ma), Lagoon (La), Estuarine (Es), Seagrass Beds (SB), Soft substrate (Ss), Coral Reef/Hard Substrate (Cr/Hr), Patch Reefs (Pr), Surge Zone (Sz), Deep-Slope Terraces (DST), Pelagic/Open Ocean (Pe); Life History Stage: Egg (E), Larvae (L), Juvenile (J), Adult (A), Spawners (S); WPRFMC = Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Source: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2009
B-7 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table B-6: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Pelagic Management Unit
WPRFMC Pelagic Management Unit Ma La Es SB Ss Cr/Hs Pr Sz DST Pe Comments Temperate Species Striped marlin (Tetrapurus audax) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: governed by temperature stratification Broadbill swordfish (Xiphias gladius) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: surface to 1,000 m Northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) A, J, L, E No data Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) A, J, L Depth Distribution: surface to 380 m Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: surface to 600 m Mackerel (Scomber spp.) A, J, L, E No data Sickle pomfret (Tatactichthys steindachneri) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: surface to 300 m Lustrous pomfret (Eumegistus illustris) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: surface to 549 m Tropical Species Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: upper 100 m with marked oxyclines Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: 36–200 m Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: surface to 263 m Frigate tuna (Auxis thazard) A, J, L, E No data Bullet tuna (Auxis rochei) A, J, L, E No data Indo-Pacific blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: 80–100 m Black marlin (Makaira indica) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: 457–914 m Shortbill spearfish (Tetrapturus angustirostris) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: 40–1,830 m Sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: 10–20 m to 200–250 m Dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) A, J A, J, L, E No data Pompano dolphinfish (Coryphaena equiselas) A, J, L, E No data
B-8 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Table B–6: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Pelagic Management Unit (continued)
WPRFMC Pelagic Management Unit Ma La Es SB Ss Cr/Hs Pr Sz DST Pe Comments Tropical Species (continued) Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) A, J, L, E Adult depth < 200 m Moonfish (Lampris guttatus) A, J Depth Distribution: surface to 500 m Non-marketable Species Complex Escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: surface to 200 m Oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: surface to 700 m Shark Species Complex Crocodile shark (Pseudocarcharias kamoharai) A, J Depth Distribution: surface to 300 m Thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) J A, J Depth Distribution: surface to 366 m Pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus) A A A, J Depth Distribution: surface to 152 m Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus) A, J Depth Distribution: surface to 500 m Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) A, J Depth Distribution: surface to 500 m Longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus) A, J No data Salmon shark (Lamna ditropis) A, J Depth Distribution: surface to 152 m Silky shark (Carcharhinus falcirormis) A A, J Adult depth of 18–500 m Oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus A, J Adult depth of 37–152 m longimanus) Blue shark (Prionace glauca) A, J, L, E Depth Distribution: surface to 152 m Notes: Life History Stage: Egg (E), Larvae (L), Juvenile (J), Adult (A), Spawners (S). Habitat: Mangrove (Ma), Lagoon (La), Estuarine (Es), Seagrass Beds (SB), Soft Substrate (Ss), Coral Reef/Hard Substrate (Cr/Hs), Patch Reefs (Pr), Surge Zone (Sz), Deep-slope Terraces (DST), Pelagic/Open Ocean (Pe); m = meter(s), WPRFMC = Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council Source: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 2001, 2009
B-9 Mariana Islands Training and Testing Final Report Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
B-10