United States Department of the Interior

Transcription

1 ER 12/ United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Richard B. Russell Federal Building 75 Spring Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia July 11, 2012 Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic Attn Code EV22 (AFTT EIS Project Managers) 6506 Hampton Boulevard Norfolk, VA Re: Comments and Recommendations on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Activities To Whom It May Concern: The U.S. Department of the Interior has reviewed the DEIS for the U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Activities. The U. S. Navy proposes to conduct a series of military training and testing activities in the waters off the east coast of the United States, lower Chesapeake Bay, and Gulf of Mexico, including anti-air, strike, anti-submarine, mine, amphibious, anti-surface, electronic, and naval special warfare. The purpose of the proposed action is to analyze potential environmental effects from naval at-sea training and testing activities in the Navy s Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area. Most of these activities will occur within established offshore operating areas (seaspace) and military warning areas (airspace). Except for migratory birds and the West Indian Manatee, fish and wildlife resources of the seaspace areas are under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We offer the following comments. General Comments The Department does not anticipate significant impacts to species under our jurisdiction except for the West Indian Manatee (see Endangered Species comments below) and for possible effects associated with the amphibious and special warfare activities. As discussed in DEIS sections (Amphibious Warfare) and (Naval Special Warfare), training may include shore assaults and boat-to-shore gunnery activities. Depending on specific timing and location, these activities could adversely affect sea turtles (nesting behavior, nests, and hatchlings), shorebirds (including wintering populations of the threatened piping plover), manatees, and coastal habitat. However, the DEIS does not provide enough details about these activities for the Department to 1

2 determine whether our concern is warranted, and we recommend addressing such potential impacts in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Although the Navy examined potential acoustic, electromagnetic, physical disturbance or strikes, entanglement, and ingestion impacts of the proposed activities, the analyses and criteria applied in the DEIS are primarily focused on in-water species and not those occurring above the mean high water line. To avoid impacts to migratory shorebirds and seabirds, the Department recommends that the Navy avoid construction and training activities during their breeding/nesting season near known nesting sites. The breeding/nesting season for shorebirds and seabirds in the study area is generally April through August. An example of proposed activities that may disturb breeding birds is described in Section of the DEIS, which discusses pile driving associated with the construction of temporary elevated causeway systems for training activities in the Virginia Capes Range Complex along the shoreline from Delaware through North Carolina. We recommend that the FEIS address the potential impacts of this and other activities that may disturb nesting birds by committing to schedule such activities outside of the breeding/nesting season. Similarly, we recommend adjusting the timing of activities to avoid disturbances in the vicinity of historically significant onshore and offshore foraging sites for flocks of migrating birds and in the vicinity of winter onshore foraging sites for the piping plover. The Navy may contact the appropriate Ecological Services Field Offices or Regional Migratory Birds Offices of the Department for more site-specific guidance to implement this recommendation as actions covered under this EIS are implemented. Endangered Species Act Comments (relative to species for which the Service s Southeast Region is the lead Region): West Indian Manatee: The proposed testing and training activities could adversely affect the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) via vessel strike, acoustic trauma, entanglement in cables/wires, disturbance via pier-side acoustic techniques, and construction in estuaries and tidal rivers that result in altered behavior or mortality. The DEIS includes the Navy s determination that the acoustics testing and training exercises may adversely affect the West Indian manatee, while other activities such as pile driving, vessel strikes, and accidental ingestion of expended munitions are not likely to adversely affect the manatee. Testing of active sonar systems while naval vessels are docked has a significant potential to affect manatees that are present in the waters of these ports. As required under regulations for the Endangered Species Act (Act), the Navy will need to initiate formal consultation with the Department for the effects of the proposed action on the manatee. The Department s lead office for manatee consultations and recovery is the North Florida Ecological Services Field Office. Sea Turtles: The DEIS includes the Navy s determination that acoustics testing and training exercises, use of explosives, and vessel strikes during operations may adversely affect sea turtles protected under the Act. These impacts would occur while sea turtles are in the water and are, therefore, under the jurisdiction of the NMFS. The Navy should initiate formal consultation with the NMFS; however, we request that the Navy include the Department on all consultation correspondence with NMFS. Because no activities analyzed in the DEIS occur on land, the Navy has determined that consultation with the Page 2

3 Department is not required for sea turtles. As noted in our General Comments above, we do not anticipate adverse effects to resources under our jurisdiction from the proposed activities, but the description of Amphibious Warfare and Naval Special Warfare activities in the DEIS lacks sufficient detail to support specific concurrence with a determination that these are not likely to adversely affect nesting sea turtles or hatchlings. We request the Navy to provide further details to support the not likely to adversely affect and no effect findings relative to sea turtles on nesting beaches. The Department s lead office for sea turtle consultations and recovery is the North Florida Ecological Services Field Office. American Crocodile: The DEIS lists vehicle and aircraft noise as the only potential stressors to the American crocodile resulting from the proposed training and testing activities, and includes the Navy s determination that these are not likely to adversely affect the species. The Department concurs. Additionally, there are approximately 16 units of the National Park System within the Southeast Region with special federally protected resources that could be affected by expanded military testing and training activities authorized by the AFTT EIS/OEIS within the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Special consideration of national park units and their federally protected resources is warranted and necessary to help ensure their preservation. Accordingly, the National Park Service (NPS) believes the AFTT EIS/OEIS should specifically reference national park units and other protected federal lands on all associated maps and to address potential impacts to park resources in Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. There are a number of national park units in close proximity to military facilities, including Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Cape Lookout National Seashore, Cumberland Island National Seashore, Canaveral National Seashore, Everglades National Park, and Gulf Islands National Seashore that may be directly affected. As such, communication with DEPARTMENT staff regarding nearby training and testing activities is imperative to protecting park resources and the safety of park visitors. These highly regarded national park units, and others, have been set aside by federal law for preservation and are required by the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 to be managed...by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. (U.S.C., Title 16, Sec. 1.) Specific Comments Clarification of Impacts Associated with the Three Alternatives Alternative 1, and to a greater extent, Alternative 2, would expand study area boundaries, the levels of current activities, and the types of training and testing activities. Yet, the AFTT Page 3

4 EIS/OEIS describes all three alternatives as having the same impact on natural resources and other resource areas. Specifically, Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 on pages ES-8 to ES-10 concludes that impacts on marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, vegetation, and other resources would be the same as those described in the No Action Alternative. However, the selection of Alternative 2 (i.e., the Preferred Alternative) consists of all activities that would occur under Alternative 1 plus the establishment of new range capabilities, as well as modifications of existing capabilities; adjustments to type and tempo of training and testing; and establishment of additional locations to conduct activities within the Study Area. This alternative allows for additional range enhancements and infrastructure requirements... (page 2-76). It would also increase number of events conducted overall, with a 10 percent increase in the tempo of all proposed Naval Air Systems Command testing activities. Increase flexibility in conducting all at-sea explosive testing in either location identified. (page 2-78). Specifically, Alternative 2 would allow for mine warfare testing and training. When combined with other activities authorized under Alternative 2, there may be a greater overall impact on endangered sea turtle populations than the No Action Alternative. As such, we encourage the Navy to consider including additional analysis to better address how the Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative, and Alternative 1 will have the same impact as the No Action Alternative on sea turtles and other resource categories outlined on Table ES-1. Reference to Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative To reduce any confusion regarding the proposed action, we strongly encourage the clear identification of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Currently, the Preferred Alternative is not identified anywhere in the Abstract or Executive Summary in Chapter 1 and isn t referenced until page 61 of Chapter 2 under Alternatives Carried Forward. Thus, the Executive Summary is lacking critical information that is necessary to understanding the AFTT EIS/OEIS as a whole. Also, Chapter 3 includes an explanation of potential impacts to various resource subject areas under a headline labeled Preferred Alternative within blue synopsis boxes for each subsection on various resource topics. To reduce any misunderstandings, each of these synopsis boxes in Chapter 3 should state Alternative 2 in parentheses next to the words Preferred Alternative. Navy and NPS Biological Monitoring Partnership We encourage the Navy to consider forming a monitoring partnership with specific NPS units to share information and to closely study the effects of the Navy's testing and training program. This partnership could prove helpful in educating park visitors about the Navy s mitigation efforts and environmental programs. Some of the country s most reliable long-term studies of sea turtles and other ocean and seashore species have occurred at Cape Lookout National Seashore, Cumberland Island National Seashore, Canaveral National Seashore, and Gulf Islands National Seashore. These four national seashores are located in proximity to major Navy installations (including Kings Bay, Mayport, and Port Canaveral) and are close to off-shore areas identified for training and testing. Page 4

5 The Navy may wish to consider supporting (with funding or otherwise) NPS sea turtle monitoring programs as well as other ongoing scientific research underway by various university partners. For instance, a number of universities are already working closely with park staff to monitor shore bird populations at Cumberland Island National Seashore and other national park units. There are a number of parks, including Everglades National Park, where the Navy may wish to partner with the NPS to study the potential deposition of chaff, which may be deployed by aircraft outside of park boundaries within special use airspace, and subsequently blown onto parklands. In summary, a partnership could help ensure that new and ongoing scientific research takes into consideration training and testing activities authorized by the AFTT EIS/OEIS and provide important new scientific information that would benefit both the Navy and the NPS. Special Consideration for Gulf Islands National Seashore As It Recovers from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Gulf Islands National Seashore includes mainland areas, coastal barrier islands, and water and submerged lands covering over 137,000 acres (550 km2) and stretches 160 miles from Cat Island in Mississippi to the eastern tip of Santa Rosa Island in Florida. The jurisdictional water boundaries of the park extend for 1-mile from the shoreline (ordinary high water/mean high tide mark) for the majority of the barrier islands that make-up the Park in both Florida and Mississippi. As part of the coastal barrier island system, the Gulf Islands are among the most prime examples of intact coastal barrier ecosystems that remain in a natural ecological continuum extending from Cape Cod to Mexico. With 5,610,000 total visitation recorded in 2011, the park is currently the ninth most visited park within the National Park System. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH), Mississippi Canyon C252 oil spill incident, it may be necessary to re-evaluate the biological impacts of the proposed action on Gulf Islands National Seashore. What may have previously been a temporary disruption or short-term minor displacement of certain species may now be a more significant impact as a result of the oil spill. Unfortunately, it may be some time before the long-term biological effects of the spill are fully determined. In the case of benthic invertebrates, pelagic fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and other marine species, suitable stocks for recruitment and recolonization may have been jeopardized by the incident. Consequently, recovery times for species abundance, diversity, and biomass should be expected to increase substantially. At a minimum, the cumulative impacts evaluation section of the EIS/OEIS needs to now consider the collective impacts of any proposed operations to near or off shore areas in proximity to the barrier islands (1 mile or less) in conjunction with the DWH oil spill. Given the disruptions to many marine and coastal species such as shorebirds and sea turtles resulting from oil spill response activities, it is more important than ever to implement seasonal timing of project activities. As such, the park encourages caution for other marine areas in close proximity (1 mile radius or greater) to the barrier islands during the sensitive wildlife nesting period of March October. Any detonation of explosives within the park s jurisdictional waters is not currently authorized. Similarly, any contemplated detonation of explosives outside of NPS jurisdictional waters, but in Page 5

6 relative close proximity to Horn and Petit Bois Islands, should be further evaluated for possible adverse effects to wilderness values (i.e., sound and solitude) on these islands. Historic buildings (list of classified cultural resources structures, e.g. island forts) are particularly sensitive to vibrations, possibly resulting from noise or explosives. Finally, we wish to inform you that commercial ferries in Mississippi operate between Gulfport and Ship Island East and West Ship Islands are included within the jurisdictional boundaries of the national park unit. Please also be aware that planning is underway for a commercial ferry to operate between Fort Pickens located on Santa Rosa Island in Florida, a part of the seashore, and Pensacola, Florida, and Pensacola Beach, Florida. The passenger ferry is expected to utilize the Pensacola Pass and Intercostal Waterway in this vicinity, so any anticipated training maneuvers in this theater should also be evaluated with respect to possible affects to the passenger ferry service. Impacts from Aircraft and Vessel Noise (Piping Plovers) There appears to be no analysis of the frequency, duration, or intensity of piping plover exposure to aircraft noise for aircraft in transit to offshore training areas. Cape Lookout and Cape Hatteras National Seashores in North Carolina both support year-round populations of piping plovers. Gulf Islands National Seashore in Florida supports migratory and wintering piping plovers. (See the following: Page : Birds using wetlands, mud flats, beaches, and other shoreline habitats or shallow coastal foraging areas would be exposed to noise from nearshore helicopter training and aircraft in transit to offshore training areas; and Page : Coastal roseate terns and piping plovers could be exposed to intermittent aircraft noise from aircraft originating from airfields located along the coast and vessel noise from nearshore boats.) Similarly, each action alternative reaches the same effects determination for the piping plovers as under the No Action Alternative, even though it is acknowledged that the action alternatives will increase aircraft and vessel noise (see previous comments). What data support the may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination for piping plovers under the No Action Alternative? In addition, the Draft EIS contains a limited discussion of the critical habitat for piping plover. Specifically, piping plover critical habitat is mentioned in one sentence: Critical habitat for wintering piping plovers is designated in the Marquesas Keys. However, there are many other locations with piping plover critical habitat (See second paragraph in section beginning on page ). It is unclear why other areas are not mentioned here, or how impacts to critical habitat were evaluated. Similar to the comment above, the Draft EIS does include an analysis of the difference in impacts to piping plover critical habitat between the action alternatives and the no action alternative. All of the above should be addressed in the Final EIS/OEIS. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Page 6

7 It is unclear what analysis supports the conclusion that Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulations applicable to military readiness activities (50 C.F.R. Part 21), the stressors introduced during training and testing activities would not result in a significant adverse effect on migratory bird populations. Is this a regulatory exemption from impacts under the MBTA, or were stressors analyzed for effects? If stressors were analyzed, where is this analysis? This should be provided in the Final EIS/OEIS. Aircraft Noise and Chaff at Everglades National Park and Dry Tortugas National Park Everglades National Park encompasses the lands and waters on the southern tip of mainland Florida, including much of Florida Bay. Dry Tortugas National Park encompasses approximately 100 square miles of water and land located 70 miles west of Key West. Both parks were established to preserve and protect nationally significant natural resources, historic, scenic, marine, and scientific values in South Florida. Both of these parks lie in close proximity to or within the Key West Range Complex, which includes the Key West Operations Area (OPAREA), the associated Special Use Airspace, and the Warning Area W-174. Operations in these areas include aircraft maneuvering, medium- and large-caliber rounds, missiles, high explosive ordnance, chaff, sono-buoys, and a variety of other munitions. Military aircraft currently operate within the boundaries of both parks, and the Department has concerns that Navy actions may already be affecting resources at Dry Tortugas National Park through disturbance to wildlife and potential damage to historic structures resulting from sonic booms, use of chaff, and other activities. Sonic booms resulting from supersonic aircraft operation in the vicinity have been recorded periodically at the historic Fort Jefferson in Dry Tortugas National Park and have caused disturbance to the nesting bird colonies adjacent to the fort. Dry Tortugas National Park supports the only large nesting colonies of the sooty tern (Sterna fuscata), brown noddy (Anous stolidus), magnificent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens) in the United States. The federally listed threatened roseate tern (Sturnella dougallii dougallii) also nests on the islands in small numbers. Many avian species are known to be disturbed by sonic booms and aircraft noise (Cavendish et al. 1988), and anecdotal reports by Park staff indicate that nearly the entire colony of nesting birds, numbering over 20,000 pairs of birds, took flight when they were startled by sonic booms (J. Patterson, National Park Service, personal communication 2008). While this type of disturbance, if infrequent, is unlikely to result in significant losses of nesting birds, some loss of individual eggs or nestlings has been reported and may be expected as a result of the disturbance when adult birds suddenly leave the nest in response to the sonic booms. The Department has recorded and reported to the Navy the sonic booms that have occurred at the Dry Tortugas, and we plan to continue to record the sonic booms and the observed effects of the sonic booms on resources within the park. We would like to work with the Navy to identify measures such as increased aircraft operations buffers, flight operations rules, or other appropriate measures to avoid adverse effects to park resources, and we may seek other mitigation for adverse effects to park resources when impacts cannot be avoided. Page 7

8 The effects of sonic booms, sonar, and other noise on marine fish and invertebrates does not appear to be well-known, though significant effects of noise on these species appears unlikely (Popper 2008). However, behavioral responses to noise disturbance and sonar have been noted, and these effects, though minor, may have the potential to affect reproduction in some marine species. Because the Dry Tortugas National Park and the associated Research Natural Area are intended to preserve and protect the marine resources in these areas, we would like to work with the Navy to monitor the acoustic impacts to the Park to potentially identify measures that would avoid and minimize potential effects to marine fauna. Aircraft maneuvering, use of missiles, projectiles, and other ordnance has the potential to disturb, and in some cases injure or kill migrant avian and bat species. The location of the Key West OP AREA is within the expected flight path of neo-tropical migratory birds and bats traveling between North American breeding grounds and South American wintering grounds. Mortality of relatively large numbers of migratory birds has been recorded as a result of collision with stationary objects such as communications antennae. Similarly, large wind turbines have also been reported to kill migrating birds and bats (USFWS 2011). Operation of aircraft similarly has the potential to injure and kill birds when military maneuvers occur during periods when birds are traversing the Florida straits, and it may also result in disturbance to these species and potential behavioral and physiological effects. The South Florida National Parks provide important stopover habitat for these migrating birds. The Department would like to work with the Navy and other interested parties to help identify practicable measures to minimize risk to migrating birds and bats such as seasonal flight restrictions, altitudinal restrictions, radar monitoring of bird aggregations, or other such measures. We are concerned about the use of chaff in areas frequented by migratory birds and bats. While the potential effects of chaff on birds and bats do not appear to be well-known, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report regarding the use of chaff (GAO 1998) recommended an examination of the respirability of fibrous particles in avian species. We are not aware of results of any such studies, but would like to work with the Navy to develop improved understanding of the potential effects of chaff on fish and wildlife and their habitats in the parks, including marine species and migrant birds and bats. In addition to the physical effects of chaff on these species, we would like to develop an understanding of whether these species may respond behaviorally to chaff, including potential avoidance of chaff clouds, altered flight paths, and similar responses. The GAO report also notes that, Initiatives between DOD and DOI are helping to identify and minimize the effects of chaff on public lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management have signed agreements with the individual military services to control chaff use over wildlife refuges, Native Americans reservations, and public lands. NPS would like to explore the potential of developing a similar agreement for the south Florida parks. While we do not have evidence of chaff resulting in degradation of parklands or waters, it is likely that chaff occurs on NPS lands and waters, potentially including designated Wilderness Areas. We would like to work with the Navy to assess potential impacts and identify measures that would minimize the occurrence of chaff in park property. Similarly, there appears to be potential for other military materials and debris resulting from training activities to occur in park waters, and we would like to work with the Navy to minimize the occurrence of military debris Page 8

9 because it detracts from the near-pristine natural marine communities that Dry Tortugas National Park was intended to protect and maintain. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIS/OEIS. If you have questions, please contact Jerry Ziewitz on (850) or via at and Bryan Faehner on (202) or via at I can be reached on (404) or via at Sincerely, Joyce Stanley, MPA Regional Environmental Protection Assistant for Gregory Hogue Regional Environmental Officer cc: Jerry Ziewitz FWS Region 4 Brenda Johnson - USGS Anita Barnett NPS Chester McGhee BIA Tommy Broussard BOEM Li-Tai Sikiu Bilbao - OSMRE OEPC WASH Page 9

10 Literature Cited Cavendish, M.G. D.N. Gladwin, K.M. Manci, and R. Villella Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: a literature synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO. NERC-88/ pp. Government Accountability Office (GAO) DOD Management Issues Related to Chaff. GAOINSIAD Popper, A.N Effects of Mid- and High-Frequency Sonars on Fish. Environmental BioAcoustics, LLC, Rockville, Maryland. Unpublished report to the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, Rhode Island. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines. _ final.pdf Page 10